You have to drill holes in the pipe at the top to allow the gas to pass unimpeded. That part seemed to work well, but I just didn't have the time to fine tune the generator.

 

Hadn't seen the drilled hole idea before, or maybe I just don't remember it. Here's a couple things that I picked up from the reading that I have done.
1) The gap between the conductors determines the bubble size. Small bubbles generate faster than large bubbles. So the theory of the author was that lots of small bubbles ended up being his most efficient design.
2) High voltage and low amperage created the most small bubles.
3) In a high voltage AC system a resonate frequency could be found by tuning the generator that helped "Shake" the bubles loose. MUCH testing to do here!!!
4) injecting air into the conduction path helped to "Scrub" the bubbles off of the conductors. I think I can plumb a pump.
I'm going to go back through a couple articles this week and weekend. At $4.00 a gallon and climbing this is looking more and more like getting a raise at work.

 

I am surprised AC works for this, with the constantly changing current travel one would think it would just pull the molecules right back to each other, then apart, then back together.

very interesting......

Diesel Rod

 

AC does work because this the rate of cycling is much slower than the chemical response time. The disadvantage of using AC is that its not so easy to separate the two gasses (as well as the added complexity in the context of an automotive system).

 

David85,
What I was looking at, if you use concentric mounted pipes 16" long, the gas generated at the bottom has to travel 16" between the pipes before it can escape.

Also 3*3.1415*16= 150.79 Sq. In. inside surface
2.125*3.1415*16= 106.81 Sq In outside surface
257.60 Sq In total area.

newer can get 790 Sq. In. with his as long as the 31 tubes are 11" long, but once again the gas is trapped between the tubes and gas generated at the bottom has to travel 11" before it can escape.

This might not be a bad thing, if there is enough intake area at the bottom, the gas rising between the tubes will create a flow of gas and electrolyte between the tubes, which should also help strip bubbles from the surfaces.

By using 2" wide plates 15" long, the farthest the gas will be trapped between the plates is 2".
And I am going to have a surface area of 899 Sq. In. in a plate pack 15" x 5.375" x 2".
If I forget having multi stages, that can be increased to 1028 Sq.In. in the same size plate pack.

My plan right now is horizontal mounting the plate pack.
I see problems and advantages to both horizontal and vertical orientation

Rod, I would be interested in the name on that commercial unit.
Do you have any idea what the gas production per minute or per hour is supposed to be?
From my reading, a 7.3 should have a unit capable of at least 2 liters of HHO per minute, and more is not bad.
From your description, that unit don't sound like it has a lot of electrode surface area.
Yes, it has been a long time since we have seen you here.
Don't be such a stranger.

 

Yeah, my generator is far from ideal but all we spent on it was less than $25 worth of plumbing parts. I'm still going to try and hook it up and see if there is any difference at all for a road test. Looking at your numbers, you definately have a much better chance of getting this to work that me.

The advantage mine has is that the length can be increaced to take advantage of the space under the truck (outboard of the frame rails). Its not very efficient relative to the size, but SS pipe is easier to find around here. There are fewer parts and it went together very quickly though (which means nothing if it doesn't work lol).

When you say horizontal mounting, do you intend to mount the plates flat?

 

My intention is to mount them so that looking straight down from the top, they will look like the little drawing I posted a while back.

Or the plates will look just like the plates in your battery do when the electrolyte is low.


My thinking about the gas trapped between the plates may mean surface area where the electrolyte is displaced from the plate by gas.
No electrolyte contact, no gas production.

 

[quote=Dave Sponaugle;5981950]
newer can get 790 Sq. In. with his as long as the 31 tubes are 11" long, but once again the gas is trapped between the tubes and gas generated at the bottom has to travel 11" before it can escape.

This might not be a bad thing, if there is enough intake area at the bottom, the gas rising between the tubes will create a flow of gas and electrolyte between the tubes, which should also help strip bubbles from the surfaces.

By using 2" wide plates 15" long, the farthest the gas will be trapped between the plates is 2".
And I am going to have a surface area of 899 Sq. In. in a plate pack 15" x 5.375" x 2".
If I forget having multi stages, that can be increased to 1028 Sq.In. in the same size plate pack.

My plan right now is horizontal mounting the plate pack.
I see problems and advantages to both horizontal and vertical orientation

Rod, I would be interested in the name on that commercial unit.
Do you have any idea what the gas production per minute or per hour is supposed to be?
From my reading, a 7.3 should have a unit capable of at least 2 liters of HHO per minute, and more is not bad.
From your description, that unit don't sound like it has a lot of electrode surface area.
quote]

All true. I know that with my other projects going that I'm on a longer design time line so I'm using the old tried and true "Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" method. My next step is to figure out two things, 1) small quantity air injection at the base to help strip the bubbles, 2) Simplify the core construction. I have no idea how long the core will last but it would be nice to be able to replace it quick and cheap.

Rod, I too am interested in the commercial product. I have read that systems with screen or mesh used as part of the reactor produce well but don't last. If your friend has had his system on the road for a while it woud be interesting to know if the perfomance is holding up.

 

From what I have seen so far, I have a feeling that scrubbing the gas bubbles from the electrodes will not be that big a problem. But if it is, air could used for scrubbing the gas of, however I'm more tempted to pump electrolite through the cells. This would get complicated, but the method has been used in fuel cells and supposedly works well. Think of it as a turbo for the generator. Just a thought, should probably wait and see how it works as is first.

 

we installed the unit in late Febuary so it hasn't got that many miles on it, maybe 10 trips from Minot/Bismark area to Minneapolis so 8000 miles at most. I forgot to ask him today when I talked to him.

Diesel Rod

 

Good idea.

 

As rough as mine rides on the nice smooth roads, WITH HUGE POTHOLES, I am not very concerned about stripping the bubbles off the plates.

I an doing good if I can keep the tailgates in my flatbed at 65 MPH.

 

Hey Dieselrod are you still out there?

I'm still curious about the commercial unit that your friend installed. Any new information or feedback is all good to know.

Thanks

 

yea he was down here Wednesday but I wasn't able to get any pictures of it.

he thought it was a fuel maximizer, I tried a good search and couldnt find anything so I dont know where he got it. sorry guys.

he did say that he isn't to happy with it. the engine had a bracket that worked perfect to mount it to, so its mounted solidly to the engine and keeps breaking the mount. it is heavy though prolly 20 pounds.

he also keeps burning up solinoinds, he got a continuous duty one and it still burns up with 25-30 amps after a few weeks.

Diesel Rod

 

So if I'm undertsanding correctly, he is buying parts, not fuel. Doesn't sound like much of a trade off for $1200 invested.