The research I did may still help others so I'll leave the site up, but my interests have taken me permanently away from HHO. Visit my YouTube channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/HHO4gas Download my latest HHO files at: http://www.4shared.com/u/zvmszps/94d1bc4f/Bob_Campbell.html

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Version 2c of the MMW calculator

I had a few suggestions and made the changes to my xls file. Here's the link to my latest Excel file that calculates mmw and compensates for temperature/gas expansion. Stay tuned there may be even more improvements to even more accurately figure mmw.

I will always keep the latest version of the MMW Calculator at:
http://www.4shared.com/u/zvmszps/94d1bc4f/Bob_Campbell.html

This Excel file works in Open Office.
Open Office is an Open Source program and free of charge. It can be downloaded at
http://download.openoffice.org/index.html

I also wrote this spreadsheet in Google. I don't have a clue about how to share it though. Ask Mar1952 about the Google spreadsheet.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The new efficiency standard!

Occasionally a great idea comes along that you just can’t ignore. We are about to see a change in the standard of our efficiency data.

Mars1952 has done it again. Here is a post by Mars that will explain what is soon to become he standard of HHO efficiency testing.

For an Excel spreadsheet that calculates this new mmw go to:
http://www.4shared.com/file/68958149/92532455/MMW_Calc_-_Volume_vs_Temp_version_2c.html_______________________________________________
If you want to factor in the temp of the HHO into the MMW you need to measure the temp of the gas as it flows into the meter. The formula is:V1/T1 = V2/T2 V = volume measuredT = temperature in degrees KelvinMeasure the gas temp in Celsius (or Fahrenheit and convert to C) To convert Celsius to Kelvin add 273 to the Celsius measurement. (If you want to be precise add 273.15)
Let's say you made 1000ml of HHO @ 38C (100F) using 166.7 watts (MMW=6.0)Later you make 1000ml of HHO@ 20C (68F) using the same 166.7 watts (MMW=6.0)Obviously gas expands when it is heated so you made more gas in the second example. To compare the two you need to convert them to the same temperature. Either convert them both to a standard temp (Faraday used 25C) or in this case we will convert the first example to 20C.
Plug in 1000 for V1, 38+273 for T1 and plug in 20+273 for T2. Now solve for V2 and get 942.1.So converting the first example to 20C yields an MMW of 5.65.Of coarse we have not considered the difference in water vapor.I just looked this up last night in my wife’s old chemistry book. If anyone knows a better way please PM me.MarsWhat do you think of it? I think that we should use 25C as a standard temp.Mars

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Phobos Gasket

Phobos is Mars closest moon. My new gasket, influenced by the design of the Mars gasket is called the Phobos gasket. This is a retrofit gasket for EBN style and other dry cells with holes bored straight through.

Description:
There are two gaskets that cover the holes with a protuberance from the side of the standard gasket shape gasket; which was designed only to seal the edges. These protuberances would have a slit similar to my version of the Mars gasket to allow the exchange of electrolyte and gases through the existing holes in the plates. Between these two gaskets would be a third gasket made of 6-mil plastic with the same shape. This center gasket will block the current leakage from the edges of the holes. This three-layer gasket would double the plate spacing but I have found a 20-mil PVC pond liner that could reduce that thickness to a total of 46-mils.


video

Mars Gasket is Astronomical Success!

Mars Gasket is a Sky High Achievment!

Consistant efficiency of 5.7 to 5.97.

This is the future of dry cell technology.

Bob
video

Thursday, October 23, 2008

All About Stainless Steel by Bob Campbell

There are over 1500 types of stainless steel. Each having it’s own unique quality. In our applications of electrolysis we are manly concerned with the non-corrosive qualities of stainless steel and therefore we have come to use either 304 or 316l stainless steel. The letter “l” designates a low level of carbon.

One of the most often asked questions is “does stainless steel contain iron, and why is it not magnetic?” The answer is yes. Stainless steel has an iron content of 58% - 69%. The magnetic permeability of the Alloys 316 and 317L in the annealed condition is generally less than 1.02 at 200 H (oersteds). It is essentually not magnetic because the crystalline properties of the alloy change the temperature at which the steel ceases to be magnetic. This temperature is called the Curie point. For example iron looses it ferromagnetic quality above 768°C. 300 series stainless steel is an alloy referred to as gamma phase iron or austenite stainless steel. There are however some stainless steels that are magnetic. These are referred to as martensite stainless steel.

One of the other concerns we should have is the electrical resistance of stainless steel 316 has 74.0 Microhm-cm. and 317 has 79 Microhm-cm. When used with high amperage this resistance can create a great deal of heat.Our application demands that we use austenite stainless steel because we want the iron to be locked into the crystalline structure of the alloy so that it will not corrode. When nickel or manganese is added, the austine structure of iron is stabilized and the crystalline structure binds the iron in the alloy and does not allow it to oxidize.

The 300 series of stainless steel contains a maximum of 0.15% carbon, a minimum of 16% chromium and enough nickel and/or manganese to retain an austenitic structure. The chromium forms an extremely thin, less than 0.0000001-inch thick, protective film of chromium oxide, which prevents further corrosion.

The next question is why do we condition our cells? The conditioning involves a process called passivation. This is not generally a process to be undertaken by laymen. It involves very dangerous chemicals.

The ASTM A380 describes passivation as "the removal of exogenous iron or iron compounds from the surface of stainless steel by means of a chemical dissolution, most typically by a treatment with an acid solution that will remove the surface contamination, but will not significantly affect the stainless steel itself." Further more the ASTM A380 goes on to say "the chemical treatment of stainless steel with a mild oxidant, such as a nitric acid solution, for the purpose of enhancing the spontaneous formation of the protective passive film."

So there you have it. We want to do this to remove free iron left over from the machining process. Passivation is a cleaning process, which also provides a thin protective film.

The use of grinding wheels, sanding materials or wire brushes made of iron, iron oxide, steel, or zinc may contaminate the stainless-steel surface. Even the use of a grinding wheel that was previously used on other metals can cause contamination. If you sand blast your plates be sure to use iron-free silica or alumina sand. Stress relieving, annealing, drawing or other hot-forming processes can push contaminants deeper into surface and make it impossible to remove with passivation. Therefore I do not recommend sanding your plates.

Cleaning is done by first removing any oil, metal or organic material from the surface. For our purposes a solvent cleaning and soaking for 30 minutes in a 5% by weight solution of sodium hydroxide at 160 to 180°F will do the job. It is very important that this cleaning be done first otherwise the acid will react with the greases and prevent the passivation process.

Next rinse the plates and then soak the plates in a 10% by weight solution of citric acid for 30 at 150F. While nitric-acid-based solutions can be used, citric acid passivation is the preferred solution because it avoids the use of mineral acids, and the disposal problems associated with mineral acids. Citric acid is considered environmentally friendly. It is important not to use excessive bath temperature, or exceed the recommended immersion time. Also be careful with contamination. Citric acid is more prone to “flash attack” than nitric acid but in my opinion the safety issues outweigh this drawback and can be controlled by following these rules. Some citric acid products contain corrosion inhibitors and wetting that reportedly reduce flash attack.

Flash attack also occurs when the passitating solution is contaminated with high levels of chlorides. Chlorides in tap water are usually low enough. It is recommended that water with 50 ppm or less be used for rising but several hundred ppm can usually be tolerated. If you are concerned, you may wish to obtain an analysis from your water company.

Flash attack is evident by a heavily etched or darkened surface instead of the desired oxide film with a shiny, clean, corrosion-resisting surface that passivation is designed to optimize. Sodium dichromate can also be added to the rinse to reduce the chance of flash attack After Passivating the plates rinse and soak once more in a clean sodium hydroxide solution for 30 minutes to neutralize the acid then and dry. That’s it. Now your plates are ready. After all this work you will not want to touch those plates so be sure to wear clean gloves.

Bob Campbell

I love the smell of hho in the morning.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Throwing in the towel on the Campbell Gasket

I’m throwing in the towel on the Campbell Gasket. I can’t make these gaskets thin enough and I fully endorse the Mars Gasket. I can’t get enough current, and the efficiency dropped so far that there was no reason to even try measuring it.

I just tested the Campbell gasket with thicker 80-mil acrylic side gaskets. The addition of 80 thousandths (120 VS. 200 mils) caused my amps to drop from 5A to .5A. The decrease in efficiency when I replaced the side of my Campbell Gaskets appears to indicate that closer spacing produces a better efficiency.

The Mars gasket may also find improvement if a thinner gasket can be built, but I have a great deal of faith in it. I’m currently building a cell with the Mars gasket using a 40-mil PVC material. The three layers will total 120-mils. EBN has had good results with 125 mils but they are now using a 62-mil gaskets.

I think I’ve found a source of 20-mil PVC pond liner. Three layers of that will be 60-mils and closer to what I want, so I’ll also try that and compare the results. I think the Mars Gasket has the best shot at success.

Since Mars and I have slightly different approaches it will be interesting to compare notes. If we both agreed on everything we would be doing the exact same research.

I’m grateful for those who are sharing what they are doing. I feel like we are all part of a team working toward a common goal and by sharing our research we all benefit. It also seems to me that lately the research has become much more scientific and advances are following suit.

Bob Campbell

The Mars Gasket
















The Campbell Gasket was tested. The 40-mil PVC shower pan liner proved to be too flexible and I am in the process of reconstructing the cell with new Campbell Gaskets made of acrylic.

Today I found that Mars1952 on YouTube has been building a cell with a similar concept. I’ve included a picture of what I perceive his design to be - with some of my own embellishments. The gasket design that Mars1952 has come up with is called the Mars Gasket

I want to build a cell with the Mars Gasket to see how well it performs. I believe his design is superior to mine, in that it is much easier to construct. It is thinner and less expensive. If both work equally well; which I believe they will. I will have to concede and let the Campbell Gasket fade into infamy as a valiant attempt to control current leakage.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Campbell Gasket

Having just invented something cool I’d like to give it a name. I’d like to call it a “Campbell Gasket” but maybe it needs something that describes the function.

I thought of “Ported Gasket” and “Channel Gasket” but those already exist. I could not find any use of the term “Piped Gasket” so it could be called a “Piped Gasket” but I like Campbell Gasket so that's what I'm going with.

I hope to construct my first cell using a Campbell Gasket this weekend. Look for a video at http://www.youtube.com/user/HHO4gas about the new Campbell Gasket.


Bob Campbell
I love the smell of HHO in the morning

Thursday, October 16, 2008

New idea for no leak gasket


The blue shows the center layer of this three-layer gasket. A gasket would be glued to a larger rectangular gasket (yellow).

The Plates are purple.

The holes in the bottom and top gaskets would line up with holes in a non conductive spacer the same thickness as the plates.

The square spacers would also be glued to the larger outside rectangular gasket, and another large gasket would be glued over the top to create one three-layer gasket.

The top layer is not depicted in this drawing for a better view. If 40 mil PVC were used it would make a 120 mil gasket. It would be nice to find a thinner material.

Bob Campbell
I love the smell of HHO in the morning!

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

No possible current leakage cell



I don't know if this is possible but here is my idea for a No Holes Cell, with no possible current leakage.

I'd love to hear your opinions

This rectangle gasket (blue) seals the entire edge of the plate (yellow) If the gasket material were very stiff, and maybe 100 mils thick. two intersecting holes could be cut to allow the fluids to pass through the edges and between the plates. The holes would create a "T". While this drawing shows the holes on the side, It would be most advantageous to put them in the top and bottom of the gaskets.

There is other work being done that I think is important to note. Watch the video linked below to see what David7900http://www.youtube.com/user/David7900 is doing on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBI1L2p2ko8

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Download my latest designs

Download my latest designs of the Licence Plate Generator at

http://www.4shared.com/minifolder/9711346/9e15cf55/sharing.html

If you have suggestions I'd lik to hear from you.

Bob Campbell

Friday, October 3, 2008

Without temperature, the data is fiction

video
This video shows a cell producing 500 ml in 21 seconds at 14.2V and 6.1A. This would lead one to belive that I've achieved 16.5 mmw.

It's important that all documented videos include accurate data about Voltage, Current, Volume and Temperature. Otherwise the claims are just fiction.

This looks like I'm making HHO at about 16.5 mmw. In reality it's mostly steam.

When posting videos about your experiments, please include Volts, Amps, LPM and Temperature.

Really interesting sites suggested by Greg T

Thanks to suggestions by Greg, I’ve become aware of a wealth of information about many types of alterative energy. To begin with I’d like to direct you to a site that could take weeks to explore. If you dare - go to
http://pesn.com/Radio/Free_Energy_Now/
Warning – This is so interesting; you may not surface for a very long time.

Recently a man in South Africa has placed faith in himself and the guidance of Bob Boyce. He is taking his audience on an adventure to recreate the Boyce Cell. Watkykjy has spent over $50,000 on this project and has documented each step for all to learn from. His direct communication with Bob Boyce adds insight that so many have wished for. Currently he is producing HHO at better then twice Faraday. By the way his name means “What are you looking for?” Thanks Greg this is a great story!
http://waterfuelforall.com/forum/index.php?topic=423.0

Bob Campbell






My latest HHO generator

Other Creative People Who Follow This Blog