Kirkg

Philba, if all you can do is name calling, then please do not post. As I said, there are many peer reviewed academic papers in Engineering libraries on the subject of LENR. I have bothered to read them, and yes over 100% efficiency is established. I don't care what you believe. My interest has been stated in my last post, and it is not Philosophy, at least not in this 'Electronic' venue. Perhaps the magazine "Sceptic" is more to your liking.

Nigel Goodwin

I'm afraid I agree with Philba, you're talking complete rubbish! - and if you believe in greater than 100% efficiency (or even 100%), you're deluding yourself.

If any such thing existed we would be using it already, and large companies would be getting VERY rich from it!.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk

HarveyH42

For the 555 chips... Don't think the exact variation will be too critical for what you are doing. If you want exact/precise and stable, you should use a different kind of timer. The 555 kind be found most anywhere, maybe even Radio Shack. I bought a bunch years ago surplus, 5/$1.00, and still have a lot of them.

Kind of sorry this thread got so far off track. You kind of asked for it with the efficiency talk though. Kind of bad timing, with the Steorn fiasco going on last week, kind of got people stirred up a little bit. Personally, I don't agree that anything over unity is possable, nor is 100% a realistic goal. God created matter and energy, mankind can only use and abuse... I do agree there must be tons of things that violate the 'laws', and many thing written off over the years as glitches or computational errors, that might be something more useful. We are a very wasteful people.

Hope you can improve your gas production with this circuit, good luck.

Kirkg

Everyone is entitled to their own belief system and good luck to us all. Please, and thank you for sticking to electronics: Thank you HarveyH42. About the 555 Timer. What is a better, more stable, and good substitute. This novice would have to have specific buying and wiring instructions to get it into that circuit posted by Skeeterb.

HarveyH42

Might as well build the circuit as is, the parts aren't that expensive. It seems fully adjustiable. My experience with 555 is that the frequency tends to drift some with temperature. Really have no idea about how to tell you about wiring it up, its not that complicated. Winding those two inductors will be the bigger challenge to me.

http://www.allelectronics.com/ A California surplus electronics store. Not sure if its even close to you, but it's a good place online, and would be great for you if not too far away.

http://www.goldmine-elec.com/ Another online store I use often enough.

Oznog

Water electrolysis is as far from fusion as sunlight is from a hard drive.

I've no problem believing cold fusion could be possible.
There is no indication that cold fusion is claimed or demonstrated. Fusion does come with readily observable effects, in particular the creation of neutrons and helium nuclei.

Furthermore these electrolytic cells have been making such claims for hundreds of times longer than needed to verify fusion is occurring. Yet there is no reputable evidence. Note that there are several devices which do produce a bit of fusion like the pyroelectric device and the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor. The "star in the jar" somnoluminescence is also being debated as a fusion phenomenon. So, the scientific establishment doesn't have a dogma here that categorically rejects all claims of fusion outside stars and nuclear bombs.

__________________
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

Kirkg

Thanks HarveyH42. That is a comment I can sink my teeth into. Oznog, my last post on philosophy was two posts ago. Electronics is the forum.

chemelec

In the event any of you are putting a hydrogen generator into a car, where there is an O2 sensor, this will concern you.

There was a PDF article on a device to Correct for the Fuel Mixture. (Air/Gas Mixture)

Unfortunately it has Numerous Errors on All the Schematics they give.

I have Posted the Origional PDF Article, As well as a Corrected Schematic and a PCB Layout for it.

http://www3.telus.net/chemelec/Proje...2-Extender.htm

Maybe it will help some of you.

__________________
I No Longer accept Private Messages on here.
All Emails to me Must Contain the Word \"Electronic\" in the \"Subject Line\"
or they go Directly to my Junk Mail Folder.
Email me at: chemelec@hotmail.com
Website: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec

Kirkg

Thanks Chemelec. That is the kind of stuff that helps. Does anyone have an oscillloscope recommendation for a beginner? I have several Electronic texts that outline the basic procedures. Used off Ebay of course.

chemelec

Ideally One that Works.

Dual Trace and 20 Mhz or better is good for most stuff.
(20 Mhz is well suited for this stuff.)

Made by a Reputable manufacturer.

With Documentation and schematic is a Good Bonus.

__________________
I No Longer accept Private Messages on here.
All Emails to me Must Contain the Word \"Electronic\" in the \"Subject Line\"
or they go Directly to my Junk Mail Folder.
Email me at: chemelec@hotmail.com
Website: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec

retep

i see the most human belive wath they hier or read some wehre in the internet.

water has no resonating frequency by splitting throu current. this is a pure chemicaly process and appers by splitting the H2 molecul from the O2 molecule. So, as mutch Ampere you send throu the water - as mutch splited gas you get. There is no higher efficeny corsed by any pulsing. only one problen is, as chemicaly clean the water is, as high is the resistance of the water. As mutch salt of other is in the water as low is its resistance. but throu the salt or other chemical in the water youre gas is also dusty (not clean any more)

the next problem is , this gas is very explosive and dangerous.

j.p.bill

Just another magic circuit. All in those special coils.

No chemical reaction or conversion of energy can be 100% efficient. Taking power from the alternator to do some trivial amount of electrolysis and expecting the H2 & O2 produced to give more energy that it took to produce it is not realistic. This has the same chance of working as the cow magnets did in mysteriously "realligning" the gasolene molecules for better combustion.

As retep stated, a mixture of H2 & O2 is dangerously explosive. Assuming you fed a significant quantity into the engine air intake and avoided a fatal explosion, the net result would be to raise the combustion temperature. The computer would lengthen the pulses to the injectors to richen up the mixture and lower combustion temp. Net result is lower mileage.

chemelec

Yes it is Explosive, Followed by an Implosion.
But with a proper Feed to the carb and an inline bubbler, the chance of this happening is next to nothing.

And Adding a Small amount of the H2 and O2, Does increase Gas Mileage. This has been Proven by many persons.

Also it Does NOT Increase the Engine Temperature, it Actually Lowers it. Also Proven.

One Problem on cars with O2 Sensors is the Sensor Can't propery Compensate for the Added O2. But there are devices to help fix this.

However trying to get Large quantities of gas to Eliminate Gasoline completely, Is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE with onboard generation.

Lastly, Doing these Modifications to cars that are used on Public Streets is ILLEGAL in Most countries and cities.

__________________
I No Longer accept Private Messages on here.
All Emails to me Must Contain the Word \"Electronic\" in the \"Subject Line\"
or they go Directly to my Junk Mail Folder.
Email me at: chemelec@hotmail.com
Website: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec

Oznog

Ah yes "proven by many people". The thing is there are literally hundreds of "proven" solutions that are complete bunk. Some are bunk created by manufacturers- intake spinners, fuel magnets, and fuel additives. Others are created by individuals with less clear motivations- a need to be seen as important really. Crackpots. Or peope who are simply mistaken- in fact simply being slightly lighter on the gas pedal, not having passengers, any number of variables can give you a 15% mpg improvement which seems to be a "standard claim" nowadays. There are many charts and stories and sadly after seeing so many that are clearly lying or mistaken I've got to say these are virtually meaningless.

These claims often make no sense to an educated individual. For example, the acetone in fuel- regardless of whether it works or not there was no way the proponents could claim that it aids in the vaporization by reducing the bonds or whatever. They had no way to observe that so they're just speaking out of their asses for an explanation.

In fact the EPA has tested most of these "solutions" and found that, regardless of the number of people swearing by them, they gain you nothing, often decreasing fuel consumption or increasing emissions.

The H2 solution makes little sense. Given the HUGE volume of air a car engine ingests, the lightly fizzing bubbles that bleeding a HP off then engine might produce isn't much. The total loop is that the HP that could have driven the car might create H2 with a 40% efficiency then the engine burns it with 15% efficiency, returning 0.06 HP for everyHP stolen from the engine output. Now if a small amount of H2 somehow changed the chemistry of the combustion to make it burn better that would be great, but the magnitude of the effect would have to be unbelievable because you're talking about a rather small amount of H2 relative to even the fuel mass. I mean, hydrocarbons already contain hydrogen. The engine turns most of it into H2O and CO2. The main reason an engine is inefficient is that the resulting gases have most of their energy in heat which we can't use. All we can use is the additional pressure created when you heat the gases. So how is adding 0.2% H2 going to suddenly change this reaction into something completely different?

And By the Way Nobody Knows what capitalizing Random Words in your sentences is supposed to Mean.

__________________
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.

chemelec

Sorry OZNOG, I Don't have an explaination as to why it works.
And I agree that scientifically it does not make any sense.

However I have seen a few of these conversions first hand and with before and after results, properly documented.

Maybe you should try it before you discard it?
Sometimes it pays to think outside the box.

I don't use this system on my vehicle but its already quite cheap to operate, running on Propane here and half the price of gasoline.

I'm done, I have no more comments on this subject.

As to those Capital letters, I like them.

__________________
I No Longer accept Private Messages on here.
All Emails to me Must Contain the Word \"Electronic\" in the \"Subject Line\"
or they go Directly to my Junk Mail Folder.
Email me at: chemelec@hotmail.com
Website: http://www3.telus.net/chemelec