2007 DURAMAX wiped by my 2002 7.3

[Izzy351]

Originally Posted by Kwikkordead Well the containers are the same, in dimension, but that's it. Somehow it generates something that allows the engine to run without any sort of conventional fuel at all if it's done right. The water in the generator is not consumed while driving as it would be if it were being used to generate hydrogen and oxygen. Several years ago I read testimonies about the guy taking his Range Rover across country with it and it had to be set up sort of backwards in comparison to a petrol fired engine. The ignition had to be set so the spark plug fired at the bottom of the compression stroke instead of just before TDC. It was as if whatever was happening, instead of having the gasses compress, then burn, then the heat expansion would drive the piston down. It was the opposite. The spark would cause the combustion mixture to implode rather than explode and the resulting vacuum would be the driving force of the internal combustion engine. He reported that the entire exhaust system was coated with ice after a drive. hhmmm... Now I'm on the skeptical side of that one. I must've missed all of that somehow -- I'll read the whole thing when I have some time. I'm not too sure how you condense whatever's in the combustion chamber with a spark that has enough force (vacuum) to drive the piston like conventional combustion would. Kind of reminds me of the "Macrowave Oven" story: http://www.avantnews.com/modules/new...hp?storyid=121

[Kwikkordead]

It doesn't make sense either.
The flip side of that whole story is that this guy somehow managed to drive his car cross country without using any gasoline. Whether he made the story up or not, is debatable.
But if what he says is true, then every oil company is in danger of having thier revenue stream cut down to a tiny fraction of what it is now. No longer would we need petroleum products for fuel. There is still a large need for it for making plastics and fertilizers and such. But not for transportation if this is true.

[alchymist]

I'm not from Missouri, but you still have to show me.

It would be great if it were true, but if it were, don't you think the attention he would have attracted would have gotten the ball rolling and by now everyone would be gas free? Or perhaps as I stated earlier - the oil companies killed it.......
Anyway, it goes back to the old saying - If it sounds to good to be true.....

But, I'll still listen with an open (but sceptical) mind to anything anyone has to say ........

[archangel]

Originally Posted by Izzy351

hhmmm... Now I'm on the skeptical side of that one. I must've missed all of that somehow -- I'll read the whole thing when I have some time. I'm not too sure how you condense whatever's in the combustion chamber with a spark that has enough force (vacuum) to drive the piston like conventional combustion would. Kind of reminds me of the "Macrowave Oven" story:
http://www.avantnews.com/modules/new...hp?storyid=121

Well if microwaves can accelerate the motion of water molecules heating them, if they make it so two microwaves fronts sync and slow the molecules down, it should cool things down real fast.

Myth-busters attempted to make a super microwave by adding more emitters and they found that after turning it on, not only did the water not warm at all, but was slightly cooler than before it was turned on.

[alchymist]

Microwaves can't be synced in the manner you speak of - the waves are either in phase, where they add, power wise, or they are 180 deg. out of phase, where they cancel, or some degree of phase difference in between the two extremes , where they partially cancel & partially add. As to slowing down the water molecules, first you would have to figure a way to line them all up moving in the same direction, as the motion of individual molecules are random, going in all directions.

Notice also that the amount of power a microwave consumes is more than the heat energy generated - no power gain.

[Izzy351]

Originally Posted by alchymist

Microwaves can't be synced in the manner you speak of - the waves are either in phase, where they add, power wise, or they are 180 deg. out of phase, where they cancel, or some degree of phase difference in between the two extremes , where they partially cancel & partially add. As to slowing down the water molecules, first you would have to figure a way to line them all up moving in the same direction, as the motion of individual molecules are random, going in all directions.

Notice also that the amount of power a microwave consumes is more than the heat energy generated - no power gain.

ANY amplifier is like that -- there is no such thing as a 100% efficient amp. That's why I laugh like he!! when I see cheap-o car amps that say 1000W and have a 10A fuse. Power in watts = volts x amps. A 12V amp with a 10A *blows the fuse* at 120W **INPUT**. How the heck does anyone believe they get 1000W OUT for 100W in?? I wish... In fact, my PC speakers said "140W" on the box, but the power supply provides 15V @ ~3A. So I'm supposedly using less than 45W to make 140W.

BTW, there is one heater that's 100% efficient, and that's electric heat. For every watt into the heatstrip, you get one watt of heat out. Of course, you're using fossil fuel that makes the electricity (unless you have your own fuel cell or wind generator), so it's more efficient overall to use a heat-pump or gas.

EDIT: Wow was that ever . Sorry -- need more coffee, then I'm headed out to change my oil...

[alchymist]

Actually some of those amplifiers can make their rated watts output. What they aren't telling you is what kind of watts . there is "true RMS" watt ratings, which is a real world power rating, & "peak audio power" which is what most amps claim.

You can achieve 1000 watts out for 100 watts in , but not continuously ...
which is where all the amps with the exaggerated claims fall down.

Unless you are one of those listeners who want their audio in 1/100 second bursts 2 seconds apart..............

Which brings us back to the original topic - TANSTAAFL. Takes energy to move a vehicle, and that energy comes from burning fuel .....Gas, and even diesel engines are notoriously inefficient......it's inherent in their design.

[lookin71]

Happy New Year,

Sooo, where do the peeps with skill stand on this subject? Just bumping the post along so I don't have to go to page three or four to find it.

Regarding the original post, my cousin has an LBZ Duramax. My frigging GOSH!! That thing is a race truck. I went with him from Louisville, KY to Los Angeles, CA to pick up a '57 Chevy and trailer it back. Also delivered a forty-something Ford truck to Dallas on the way out.

4,700 miles in seven days, and we didn't drive two of those days. Don't want to do that again.

Mileage wasn't the greatest, but we went rather quickly at all times. He did have a chip in it too. Like 40 HP tow. All I can say is, ANY Ford that can keep up with that thing is doing great. I am jealous. My truck is nearly stock and needs all the usual fixes and upgrades. So, if this generator can be done, I want one. I will put one on my cars too.

So, thanks to all who contribute. On all threads, not just this one.

Donnie

[SolidGround]

lookin71,
I concur, my dads LMM duramix has an air intake, 4" straight-piped, and live tuned, hasn't touched anything else and his truck will almost hang with mine. In fact, at a 60 mph roll-on he has me to about 100 then it's over for him. It's scary fast, I'd like to see one heavily modded.


.

[F250_]

Back to the topic at hand....

Here's something else I was thinking about last week in regards to things we need to "watch out" or "be prepared" for. Think about those times when we push the engine fast and hard (racing, showing off, "checking it out", pushing up a hill, etc...) and come upon a need for sudden speed reduction (flashing blue lights, headlights flashed at us from oncoming traffic, deer jumping out of ditch into road, running out of road for maintained speed, unexpected curve or hill or traffic light or stop sign, etc....)....

For those situations (or similar) listed above, we have a foot in the throttle and then back off quickly, and we all know what happens.... we get that amazing WHOOOOSSSH!!!

Now, in relation to our hydrogen generator, what are the implications of this short term reverse flow event? Is this something we need a "check valve" for in the hydrogen gas injection tubing? Ignore it and just keep running? etc....

Here's the reason I ask. Whenever we create that backpressure on the intake tube going into the turbo, we will not only be not allowing hydrogen to be vented from the system, but we may just slightly pressurize the generator vessel as well. Question is... just how much pressure is actually generated in the intake tube during this backflow event? If it's very much at all, our design for a relief device must be also capable of NOT relieving during these "throttle back-down" episodes.


Also, related to some discussion above regarding the "water drip" machine, here's another interesting article.

http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

[alchymist]

Originally Posted by F250_

Back to the topic at hand....

Here's something else I was thinking about last week in regards to things we need to "watch out" or "be prepared" for. Think about those times when we push the engine fast and hard (racing, showing off, "checking it out", pushing up a hill, etc...) and come upon a need for sudden speed reduction (flashing blue lights, headlights flashed at us from oncoming traffic, deer jumping out of ditch into road, running out of road for maintained speed, unexpected curve or hill or traffic light or stop sign, etc....)....

For those situations (or similar) listed above, we have a foot in the throttle and then back off quickly, and we all know what happens.... we get that amazing WHOOOOSSSH!!!

Now, in relation to our hydrogen generator, what are the implications of this short term reverse flow event? Is this something we need a "check valve" for in the hydrogen gas injection tubing? Ignore it and just keep running? etc....

Here's the reason I ask. Whenever we create that backpressure on the intake tube going into the turbo, we will not only be not allowing hydrogen to be vented from the system, but we may just slightly pressurize the generator vessel as well. Question is... just how much pressure is actually generated in the intake tube during this backflow event? If it's very much at all, our design for a relief device must be also capable of NOT relieving during these "throttle back-down" episodes.


Also, related to some discussion above regarding the "water drip" machine, here's another interesting article.

http://www.energyoptions.com/tech/browns.html

Well, If we
1) Actually achieve a reasonably small reliable generator, and
2) Can make a case $ wise for installing, then
3) There are many valves and controls both vacuum and solenoid operated that could be adapted. (Think vacuum heater controls, solenoid operated emissions controls, home furnace controls, etc). Also,
4) Reread post # 183, particularly the "Now, we could get fancy, and put an electronic controller on it" part. Ah, so much fun .......

[F250_]

Yes.... YEs...... YESSSS!!!!

The controls will certainly be fun, but I just don't know how to build/design electronics to accomplish what we really need to have.

More reading fun.... I found another link that seems to be an outstanding resource for us to ivnestigate and take advantage of that was inspired by someone who suppposedly has done more research and development on electrolysis than almost anyone, espcially in regards to Brown's Gas Generators - Bob Boyce.

The first link below addresses a lot of issues for us, and the second one is how I got to the first one.

http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_B...r_Plans/d9.pdf

http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_B...rolizer_Plans/

[mudmaker]

Originally Posted by F250_

Yes.... YEs...... YESSSS!!!!

The controls will certainly be fun, but I just don't know how to build/design electronics to accomplish what we really need to have.

More reading fun.... I found another link that seems to be an outstanding resource for us to ivnestigate and take advantage of that was inspired by someone who suppposedly has done more research and development on electrolysis than almost anyone, espcially in regards to Brown's Gas Generators - Bob Boyce.

The first link below addresses a lot of issues for us, and the second one is how I got to the first one.

http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_BobBoyce_Electrolizer_Plans/d9.pdf

http://pesn.com/2007/09/29/9500450_BobBoyce_Electrolizer_Plans/

Seems like they have it figured out pretty well! My concern would be the water prior to the entry into the intake in the bubble tank. Could it suck water out of that tank into the intake? Maybe that could be avoided by making sure the water was not too close to the top of the tank.

[F250_]

Marc... this very thing was discussed in earlier posts, and I think the solution is to have the water trap located very low down and only have a total of a couple of inches of water (1-2 only) sealing the loop.

[alchymist]

Originally Posted by F250_

Marc... this very thing was discussed in earlier posts, and I think the solution is to have the water trap located very low down and only have a total of a couple of inches of water (1-2 only) sealing the loop.

Or simply put a double T in the output line, and mesh screens. There are mesh screens small enough to pass the gas thru yet block the water. In other words, vertical pipe out, to horizontal T, elbow the legs of the the T back vertical , install the screens, then T the verticals back together. The use of two screens provides redundancy in case one gets plugged (unlikely). Could also backflush when adding water. Lots of solutions, so little time......

Oh yeah, I think it's time this had a thread of it's own....why are we discussing hydrogen assist in a Duramax titled thread anyway?????