Testing needed to verify points and lead to replication of Papp’s
original engine:
1. For the sake of “argument” a spectrum of testing with
several HHO generators may be performed.
This would be to confirm the 20 to 30% extra mileage
obtainable with an “injection” of the H2 and O2 into a standard
piston engine.
Some notes on this “technical mystery”.
A. The amount of power into the typical H2 O2 electrolysis
device is 12 Volts times a 30 to 40 amp input. However,
since the disassociation voltage is around 2.4 volts, the
REAL power input to H2 and O2 is – 40 *2.4 or about 100
watts.
B. An OTTO cycle engine, producing about 20 SHAFT HORSE
POWER to maintain 60 MPH, (neutral wind) has a 5:1
thermal power input or about 100 HP. At 760 watts per
HP, that means the device has 76,000 watts input of
thermal (chemical) power.
C. Compare that value (76,000 watts ) with 100 watts of H2
and O2, and we have a 100/76,000 or a 1/760 ratio. Thus
around a 0.1% input of H2 and O2 power.
D. Simple Faraday’s law formula gives 627 ml per hour per
amp. Thus 40 amps would be 25000 ml per hour or 420 ml
per minute of H2 and O2.
E. A typical automobile has an INPUT VOLUME of about
25000000 ml per minute so the 420 is about 200 PPM of
H2 and O2 (by volume).
F. This change can be obtained by Octane change and
Density Altitude change. There is NO WAY this trivial
amount of H2 and O2 can change the “burn”
characteristics of the Otto cycle engine to give one “better
efficiency”. All such claims are HAND WAVING and
nonsense.
Thus, a 20 to 30% increase in mileage means a phenominal
addition of 14 to 20 Kilowatts of energy from some source.
2. This testing would involve using carefully controlled and
documented runs with several vehicles.
3. Pre-HHO injection runs should be made with two methods
(perhaps 3, if a mileage meter is built in)..
A. Miles recorded, and fuel added to calculate mileage.
B. Mileage through the OBDII, using an ELM327, and GLM
Software’s OBD 2007.
C. The mileage runs above should be done on “out and
back” routes, with cruise control. They should be open
highway, with minimal traffic.
D. A baseline mileage with a good Standard Deviation
should be established.
4. The HHO unit should be installed, and then mileage runs
made with it. Please note: The Hugo/Hyer concept of
bubbling through the units should be used, and the
injection can be both from the trunk, through a pipe to the
front and via locating in the engine compartment.
5. The “German Auto Rolling Resistance/Air Resistance”
calculation charts (given HERE) should be run for the
autos involved. (First!) With the baseline mileage, an
overall efficiency of the engine should be calculated.
6. Presuming a measureable change, the GAS FLOW of the
H2 and O2 should be calculated. The POWER to the HHO
cell calculated, and the NET ADDITION OF POWER should
be calculated.
AN ASIDE HERE: It will be worthwhile to calculate the O2
addition and compare it with “density altitude” changes, also
PURE H2 (or Pure O2 and H2) can be injected at the same rates
(from gas cylinders) the object to PROVE that the MINOR H2
and O2 injection can IN NO WAY INFLUENCE the “combustion”
to make it more “efficient”, or the like. We can use this to show
there is some “magic” which has FAR MORE ENERGY THAN ANY
CHEMICAL SOURCE. This is the source of the energy which will
come from our “engine”.
This work could be performed in concert (given resources) with
the work towards recovering the Papp.
The Papp recovery would follow an outline as this:
A preliminary set of tests may be run with Arc Points, Arc
Guides, argon gas flows, water mist injections, Cl2 and HCl
injections.
These may be run in a clear, Pexiglass cylinder (or even
rectangular, it doesn’t matter) test chamber. Said chamber
should be capable of doing 4 ATM pressure.
A set of characterizations should be run to find the optimal
settings for the-
1. Arc points.
2. AC voltage
3. HCl and or Cl2 concentrations.
4. Flow rates…(these should be juxtaposed against those
which would be technically happening in a compression
cylinder.
5. Arc Guide Geometry
Experiments with Thoriated W electrodes, with “activating
cells” near the arc discharges, to determine the best initiation
and sustainability.
AFTER establishing the important “Gliding Arc” parameters,
THEN the study can move on to:
6. Build a HEAVY WALLED, Plexiglas Test apparatus with a
cylinder; with strong…multi layered Teflon RINGS.
7. The cylinder head should have the basic elements of the
Papp..I.e.:
A. Alpha emitter activating cells.
B. Arc guide plates (Papp’s capacitor plates). This would be
based on the results of the WaterArgonHalideGlidingArc
study completed prior to this phase.
C. Tungsten arc points.
There will also be:
8. The provision for putting various gases and liquids in the
cylinder, on top of the piston..valving, etc.
9. The ability to supply AC and DC to said electrical
penetrations.
10.
First goal will be to run the Chlorine mix into
deoxygenated water as Papp indicates.
A. Papp is right; the system MUST be agitated to mix the
Chlorine into the water. This will allow “super
saturation”, as CO2 in a pop bottle.
B.
Pure observation of the water, with an inert gas overlay,
should give some indication of the success of
supersaturating the water with Chlorine.
C. After this is done, the AC can be run, by itself, to begin
to get a feel for the “Water Arc” creation using the
parameters from the first phase.
D. Monitoring of the water’s conductivity and pH should be
done to elucidate the feeding of HO(-) and H3O(+) into
the water, to make it conductive.
Please note the testing element in “C” may involve another
dozens of tests to optimize the Arc in the cycled Cylinder set up.
Also these tests are needed to observe the character of the
arc, and the relative timing on the down-stroke.
It should be noted that the Papp “Capacitor Plates” can be
replaced with a more efficient double plate with a hyperbolic
cut. This will allow more of the UV to distribute in the cylinder,
and also duplicate the work in Formation of H2 and H2O2 in
Water Spray Gliding Arc Non-Thermal Plasma. We know that
this will allow the formation of H2 and H2O2, and the result will
disassociate any HCl which has been formed. Also, no H2, O2
or Cl pressure will build as the H2 Cl2 combine to make HCl and
go back into the water, and the H2 and O2 recombine as well.
E. Once “C” is established, one can start to apply the DC to
the system, to generate H2 and O2 on the “upstrokes”.
F. It may be possible to do this in SLOW MOTION
G. Once H2 and O2 builds, it may be possible to limit
pressure by the Recombing stimulated by the water
ARC. (Note that the WATER ARC will have many
elements similar with HID lights and with Metal Halide
Lights.)
11.
Presuming that the “self-induced electrolyte”
function is verified, and the ability to develop H2 and O2,
and THEN recombine (no pressure build up), it would
behoove the team to run this cycling for some HOURS or
DAYS.
12.
Step 11 would presume that something “special” is
building in the engine.
Now here is where the team will have to make some
“decisions”.
The Plexiglas device, helpful for observing the Water Arc, and
the Electrolysis Action, now may begin to be a hazard. If proper
pulses are developed they will be in the 500 to 1000 PSI realm.
They could FRACTURE the Pexi. Transition to Al cylinders may
be needed.
ALSO there are reasons to believe that the SPEED of the
compression/relaxation may need to be DUPLICATED to obtain
the results Papp obtained. I.e., at this point going “SLOW
MOTION” may not be appropriate.
Thus the transition to a REAL Automotive “frame” may be in
order.
Again, we are going to have problems in maintain the Inert gas
pressures.
BUT the inert gasses are part of the concept of developing a
SYNTHETIC COMBUSION PLASMA in the system. In point of fact,
the ratios and amounts of H2 and Cl2 may be sufficient to
create much of this plasma and the resulting plasma from H2
and Cl2 may be much more efficient in it’s “totality” than that
of an H2 and O2 “burn” as the latter would progress in a wave
from an initiating spark, whereas the former (H2 and Cl2) may
well be SIMULTANEOUS throughout the volume as the UV
trigger can penetrate the whole volume, essentially
instantaneously.
It may be belaboring the obvious, but let us go back a step or
two to the method of turning over the “test engine frame”.
It should be done with an AC motor controlled by a “variable
speed drive”. VSD’s allow active monitoring of the POWER
INPUT.
Previous work by this author leads him to understand that a
standard piston engine needs about 1500 to 2000 watts to turn
it over. (Also: 12VDC with 100 to 200 cranking amps, makes
sense.)
Thus presume a 2000 watt power input from the VSD.
DELOADING SIGNIFICANTLY (say 1000 to 2000 watts) would
indicate net power production.
POINT OF FACT: Dry lab testing with NO DC/AC, just various gas
pressures will set a baseline for this measurement.
If “deloading” is observed, Minutes of it would PROVE the
concept and the reality. Although MINUTES would be excellent,
and hour plus adequate, technically seconds of deloading could
indicate significant power production.
Let’s say we observed 70 seconds of power production.
Knowing the materials inside, examining the cylinders/pistons,
to demonstrate NO CHEMICAL CHANGES, we may have the “toe
hold” on the reality.
We then need to optimize the system and find out why it “runs
down”.
Let’s presume we get to slightly above turn over. The linear
crank system can go to another AC Generator. And the VSD can
be backed off and output power obtained.
There may be a point at which this author’s original
“mechanistic” write up on the Papp engine is invoked, and we
must be careful about run-away and positive feedback.
One difference between this test system and Papp’s original is
that the testing proposed here should be done with:
A. External DC Power supplies, constant current/voltage.
B. External AC Power supplies for the ARC.
Both of the above can be turned off according to RPM, to
prevent a run-away.
(Please note: There is the possibility that the compression itself
might trigger a reaction and a run-away will still occur. That is
why the test engine frame should be performed in an
“explosion resistant” containment.)
The explosion resistant containment would be a shelter made
of wood or steel framing and allowing the surrounding of the
test engine with 3 to 6” of sandbags (best for explosion control,
designed to “absorb” energy from fast moving shrapnel, not to
try to deflect or contain it. (A sturdy steel plate system can be
placed OUTSIDE the sandbags for “containment”.
With web cams, MCDAQ systems, the system can be remotely
controlled and observed without jeopardizing any of the test
personnel.
It is understood this is a “bare bones” outline of the work to be
performed.
Actual test equipment selection, parameters, construction, and
sequence of operations will involve much more detail. There
will have to be many feedbacks.
There may also have to be a point of “NO SIGNIFICANT
RESULTS”, and termination.
Mark Hugo, Nov. 2012