Russ's Burn Rate Testing

securesupplies

RE: Russ's Burn Rate Testing
« Reply #25, on April 16th, 2012, 01:50 PM »Last edited on April 16th, 2012, 02:08 PM by securesupplies
Quote from Blazer on April 16th, 2012, 01:41 PM
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on March 13th, 2012, 10:08 PM
Quote from Gambino on March 13th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Russ, here is my guess on the dilution effect you are seeing where the gas with ambient air causes the piston to move further.

Ambient air is 79% is inert gases. So the mixture will slow the burn rate down on the H2 burn. The military teaches a few things about burn rates in explosive compounds. The slower burners are classified as movers while the fast burners are classified as crackers. This is a very simplistic look at explosive compounds but may be useful in determining your burn rate and movement issue.

I am guessing that because you diluted the gas down with inert it slowed the burn rate of the hydrogen down which caused it to expand in the pressure chamber over a longer period of time. While that is taking place the piston is moving forward and the pressure behind it starts to drop, but the gas is still expanding and exerting a force on the backside of the piston which will produce more workforce.

additionally, in one of Stan Meyer's videos he states that he recycles exhaust gases to control the rate of burn in the cylinder of the engine so its burn rate closely matches gasoline. This causes me to consider also some other guy on youtube that showed a civic running on HHO or browns gas. In that guys process he had to retard the ignition to TDC or just before TDC because the HHO burned so quick, under normal timing it would fire before the piston reached TDC. Need I say that is a very bad idea in an ICE?

Anyway I think you have found why the military is constantly looking at new complex chemical compounds with various burn rates. They design explosives for different purposes. I will give you an example they showed me in school. C4 placed under a tree trunk did nothing to move the trunk away from the ground. However, when they used TNT of the same size it moved the tree a very long way from its starting position. They were using this scenario to teach us the difference between a cracker and a mover explosive. C4 burns very fast when ignited and TNT burns much slower, so it builds up pressure over a longer period of time from the point of ignition.

Hope that helps. Keep up the great work.
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on February 29th, 2012, 11:47 AM
Hydroxy Has More Explosive Pressure With Extra Ambient Air??? “Burn-O-Meter”

thoughts? thanks!!!

~Russ
that's it, and that's the same conclusion i had, i also like the other info and references! good stuff!

also, yes, Stan did indeed use recycled  exhaust gasses or "non combustible" gasses... so all this makes sense and is also the stuff i'm trying to verify. all the tests are looking good so far. the Gas Gun is seeming to have no effect on the burn rate... but i.m also not pressurizing it...  and i still have some work to do on the GG.

thanks for the reply!!! ~Russ
I found a patent from some NASA guys.  They filed their patent at the same time frame Stan had started to file his patents.  Their pat. is basicly a recycled exhaust system with ARGON added to the closed loop exhaust recovery. Patent# 4,112,875 Titled: HYDROGEN_FUELED ENGINE  Sept. 12 1978
good work
dan
Quote from securesupplies on April 16th, 2012, 01:50 PM
Quote from Blazer on April 16th, 2012, 01:41 PM
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on March 13th, 2012, 10:08 PM
Quote from Gambino on March 13th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Russ, here is my guess on the dilution effect you are seeing where the gas with ambient air causes the piston to move further.

Ambient air is 79% is inert gases. So the mixture will slow the burn rate down on the H2 burn. The military teaches a few things about burn rates in explosive compounds. The slower burners are classified as movers while the fast burners are classified as crackers. This is a very simplistic look at explosive compounds but may be useful in determining your burn rate and movement issue.

I am guessing that because you diluted the gas down with inert it slowed the burn rate of the hydrogen down which caused it to expand in the pressure chamber over a longer period of time. While that is taking place the piston is moving forward and the pressure behind it starts to drop, but the gas is still expanding and exerting a force on the backside of the piston which will produce more workforce.

additionally, in one of Stan Meyer's videos he states that he recycles exhaust gases to control the rate of burn in the cylinder of the engine so its burn rate closely matches gasoline. This causes me to consider also some other guy on youtube that showed a civic running on HHO or browns gas. In that guys process he had to retard the ignition to TDC or just before TDC because the HHO burned so quick, under normal timing it would fire before the piston reached TDC. Need I say that is a very bad idea in an ICE?

Anyway I think you have found why the military is constantly looking at new complex chemical compounds with various burn rates. They design explosives for different purposes. I will give you an example they showed me in school. C4 placed under a tree trunk did nothing to move the trunk away from the ground. However, when they used TNT of the same size it moved the tree a very long way from its starting position. They were using this scenario to teach us the difference between a cracker and a mover explosive. C4 burns very fast when ignited and TNT burns much slower, so it builds up pressure over a longer period of time from the point of ignition.

Hope that helps. Keep up the great work.
Quote from ~Russ/Rwg42985 on February 29th, 2012, 11:47 AM
Hydroxy Has More Explosive Pressure With Extra Ambient Air??? “Burn-O-Meter”

thoughts? thanks!!!

~Russ
that's it, and that's the same conclusion i had, i also like the other info and references! good stuff!

also, yes, Stan did indeed use recycled  exhaust gasses or "non combustible" gasses... so all this makes sense and is also the stuff i'm trying to verify. all the tests are looking good so far. the Gas Gun is seeming to have no effect on the burn rate... but i.m also not pressurizing it...  and i still have some work to do on the GG.

thanks for the reply!!! ~Russ
I found a patent from some NASA guys.  They filed their patent at the same time frame Stan had started to file his patents.  Their pat. is basicly a recycled exhaust system with ARGON added to the closed loop exhaust recovery. Patent# 4,112,875 Titled: HYDROGEN_FUELED ENGINE  Sept. 12 1978
good work
dan

PS the QUOTE about not using ambient air , because maybe we are  in space?
 means you can close loop the argon or other noble gases and plumb through epg.

meaning a normal car can get around with out the ambient air use  which is effected by humidty and pressure and close loop it to get the  volume mass from heat on the argon or noble gases as chart in the attached shows
as the  Burn o meter thread asked about what is the heat exspansion rate
WOW nice one also see the chart on gas expansion rates  very good reference

DAN

Blazer

RE: Russ's Burn Rate Testing
« Reply #26, on April 16th, 2012, 04:33 PM »
Are you thinking the EPG was fitted between the engine and clutch assy and maybe had some magnets on the flywheel?  Then the exhaust is run through the EPG and the spark plugs the laser, the magnets the pulse, and the compression the mixing?
RE: Russ's Burn Rate Testing
« Reply #27, on April 16th, 2012, 04:33 PM »
Are you thinking the EPG was fitted between the engine and clutch assy and maybe had some magnets on the flywheel?  Then the exhaust is run through the EPG and the spark plugs the laser, the magnets the pulse, and the compression the mixing?

securesupplies

RE: Russ's Burn Rate Testing
« Reply #28, on April 17th, 2012, 02:19 AM »
Quote from Blazer on April 16th, 2012, 04:33 PM
Are you thinking the EPG was fitted between the engine and clutch assy and maybe had some magnets on the flywheel?  Then the exhaust is run through the EPG and the spark plugs the laser, the magnets the pulse, and the compression the mixing?
rotary vic,  

rotarty epg?

the gas is the magnetic so no need for magnets
if it is a closed system problem is slowing it down not speeding it up if of exhuast
gas

Blazer

RE: Russ's Burn Rate Testing
« Reply #29, on April 17th, 2012, 04:31 AM »Last edited on April 17th, 2012, 05:50 AM by Blazer
Quote from securesupplies on April 17th, 2012, 02:19 AM
Quote from Blazer on April 16th, 2012, 04:33 PM
Are you thinking the EPG was fitted between the engine and clutch assy and maybe had some magnets on the flywheel?  Then the exhaust is run through the EPG and the spark plugs the laser, the magnets the pulse, and the compression the mixing?
rotary vic,  

rotarty epg?

the gas is the magnetic so no need for magnets
if it is a closed system problem is slowing it down not speeding it up if of exhuast
gas
IF the gas is magnetic and spinning it could be pulling the flywheel to increase horsepower and slow the gas down.  Also think about a magnetic field being applied the the cell.  Did you see the vid of them positioning the coil into the underside of the orange tank?  Also check out Stans pat 4,613,779 he calls the pulley "drive means" is that an input or output drive?  One way to verify would be to get a side view of the buggy and measure from the center of the rear wheels to a given point on the engine then compare that to another buggy?