Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 2:01 am.
Discussion page for OS:Eaton Water Fuel Cell by HybridTech EnergyLatest: Directory:Electrolysis > Directory:Hydroxy or HHO Injection Systems > NEW: OS:Eaton Water Fuel Cell by HybridTech Energy >HybridTech releasing water fuel generator plans - A Louisiana company announced yesterday that they are in process of releasing plans for building a water fuel cell that produces enough hydroxy gas from water to run a generator to keep the electrolysis cell going as well as producing excess electricity for other use. (PESN Nov. 13, 2009) (Comment)
(Just click on the "
There was an error working with the wiki: Code.)
Eaton FC -- Yahoo!Groups forum - official discussion list for the Eaton Water Fuel Cell replication project. Commenced Nov. 14, 2009. Open forum, public allowed to view posts.
Feel free to view/post comments at our Examiner.com version of this story.
Directory:Electrolysis > OS:Eaton Water Fuel Cell by HybridTech Energy > OS:Eaton Water Fuel Cell by HybridTech Energy - Dr. Eaton's HHO cell is shown making 1 liter of hydroxy gas in 12 seconds drawing 12 volts, 23.6 amps. This is an update of the technology we announced last week that is open sourcing their design. (PESWiki Nov. 23, 2009)
On Nov. 24, 2009, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Francis Giroux wrote:
Inaccurate Water Displacement Test of HHO Production using Hybrid Tech Energy’s Video
: Water displacement is a good way to measure HHO gas production if it is done correctly. First I will give simple instructions for a water displacement measurement setup and then I will point out the obvious errors of the setup in the video claiming 200% efficiency in their HHO cell.
: Simple instructions I usually give to an experimenter for water displacement measurement of gas production are as follows.
: Take a two liter bottle full of water and turn it upside down in a bucket of water without spilling out any water (a one liter bottle will work just as well).
: Take your gas hose from your electrolyzer and run it down into the bucket and up into the upside down bottle. Then turn on your electrolyzer and time how long it takes to empty the bottle of water by replacing it with gas.
: More precise instructions would include efforts to keep the end of the hose and the open end of the bottle as close to the water surface in the bucket as possible and a measurement of the atmospheric pressure in the room, as well as voltage and amperage measurements on the electrolyzer.
: Before we look carefully at their protocol let me say that being very familiar with the bubbling of gas out of a hose at two liters per minute makes it easy for me to see that the gas production was very similar to that of our electrolyzer running at that current.
: Now let’s look at the apparatus in the video to see what varies from this protocol. First of all the gas hose is coming from a reservoir/foam separator that is half full of foam and the container appears to be 2-5 gallons. This would be meaningless if the above instructions were followed but they are not. The instructions above would not be as critical if the gas hose was coming directly from an electrolyzer with virtually no reservoir of gas space inside.
: Now let’s look at how the protocol varies from my instructions. Before they start their timer (watch) they have the gas hose bubbling into the bottom of a one liter bottle full of water. Without exact measurement of the height of that bottle I will have to guess that the one liter bottle is 9 inches tall and the hose is inserted 9 inches below the water level. So what? The pressure on the end of that hose is 9 inches of water column, or roughly 0.375 psi. This would not matter so much if the gas hose came from an electrolyzer with virtually no gas reservoir inside, but here we have upwards to 2 and a half gallons or ten liters of compressed gas in the reservoir at 0.375 psi or 9” water column or 0.025 Atmospheres.
: Now when the clock is started the bottle is inverted into the bucket of water and the hose is under a vacuum roughly equivalent to the pressure it had before because the water in the bottle is now pulling down and causing a vacuum at the end of the gas hose. During the timing of the test the vacuum dissipates as the water level inside the bottle goes down. However the equivalent total vacuum during the test will be roughly half the maximum vacuum of 0.025 Atmospheres. So the differential effective pressure difference before and during the test will be 0.025 + ½(0.025) = 0.0375 atmospheres during the test.
: Using the gas law PV/T=PV/T we can figure out the amount of gas that went into the bottle coming from the reservoir and NOT from the electrolyzer. The gas hose was certainly big enough to dissipate any pressure in 12 seconds so we can say with assurance that the ending pressure was 1 atmosphere. The effective beginning pressure was 1.0375 atmospheres. The volume before was ten liters inside the reservoir. The volume after was ten liters inside the reservoir and X liters inside the test bottle. That is what we are trying to figure out. Temperature before and after were the same. So we can ignore temperature and our equation becomes 1.0375 x 10 = 1.000 x (10+X) Solving this equation for x we get X=0.375 liters of gas transferred from the reservoir into the bottle during the test that was not produced by the electrolyzer.
: Other inaccuracies in their protocol was the turning of the bottle upside down into the bucket and how much water spilled out during this operation, and lastly the voltage that was used by the electrolyzer. Using a twelve volt battery charger is using at least 14.2 volts as would be using the alternator of a car. So figuring out electrolyzer efficiency with the proper voltage, which could have easily been measured with a voltmeter during the test, is essential. Also the video showed no bubble of HHO gas coming out the neck of the bottle before the stop watch was stopped and by watching the water level going down at the end of the test (which was very obviously slower than at the beginning of the test (when there was both vacuum inside the bottle and pressure on the gas inside the hose caused by the pressure in the reservoir). The video also didn’t show the stop watch being started (the watch and finger were off the screen). I timed the test myself while watching the video at 15 seconds.
: I estimate that the inverting operation lost one ounce of water or 0.03125 liters. The pressure/vacuum caused 0.375 liters to come from the reservoir. That leaves 0.59375 liters of gas produced by the electrolyzer with 14.2 volts and 23.6 amps (assuming their ammeter was accurate) in 15 seconds. 'All these errors combined bring their 200% efficient electrolyzer to an efficiency of only 80% which is typical for a six cell unit running at 14 volts', which is what our Hydrogen Boost unit is.
: All this calculating only confirms my estimate of the amount of gas coming out the end of the gas hose when they had it in the bottle of water.
: Sorry for the dashed hopes but this is just another example of poor measurement.
See additional dialogue in this thread at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Eaton_FC/message/82
On Dec 1, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Dr. Eaton wrote:
I reviewed the posting by Francis Giroux.
He is an obvious authority on the subject, and has been a great asset to the cause and promotion of
hho generating devices. However, his comments on how we ran our PRELIMINARY tests are verging
on libelous. He throws in a bunch of science babble about atmospheric pressure and how it could affect
hho stored in the bubbler. The fact that we have the hose running in the bottle before we start the test by
inverting the bottle shows that those pressures are neutralized prior to starting the test. He should be aware
that to start the test by turning on the electrolyzer would give false readings, the ramp up time (even though it is just a few seconds) and the time it takes to displace the atmosphere in the bubbler/reservior and hose before the gas filling the bottle
was actually hho has to be considered by his testing methods. And even the suggestion that we could have
put a hole in the bottom is ludicrous and would be self defeating considering that our next step would be to
have our findings further verified by an independent university lab study.
To suggest that this new technology is nothing better than any he currently has on the market is below a man
of his standards. This is not a competition or game, it is an attempt to further science.
I would suggest that before he do any more damage to his reputation he should put together an electrolyzer
using our technology and test it by whatever method he prefers to test his own by and check the outcome for himself.