You can't talk sense into everyone, and apparently very few passed any highschool math classes, let alone have any physics knowledge, or the motivation to research on their own.
I still laugh at the morons calling it HHO.

Can we move this thread to grade school tech, it has no place in here

 

Don't you understand that only ignorance of the limits
can free your inner genius?

Great inventors are often mocked as fools.

Thing is, every fool then likes to believe they are just
in a "period prior to greatness".

So tell your inner genius to put on a bathrobe. Or
something.

 

yeah.. the limits.. like the LAWS of PHYSICS lol. Laws that cannot be broken within the Limits of our universe.. that's why they're the laws.

 

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml
read away boys
the laws of physics will not be broken do some research the only possible
i did actually try this on a buddy's car and by LEANING his afrs to about 16:1 he got better fuel economy with or with out the "hho" got 2 mpgs better not 40% better, the only way this would work is if it cooled down the cylinders enough to run very lean, so why not just try to run meth inj. set up and lean out your afrs, but running a motor on this "hho" is impossible with out 300000 watts just to meet 400hp of a bolt on ls1. so like maybe with 300v battery running 1000 amps.
but then all you have is heavy *** hybrid that would not be cost effective

 

As a physics major I feel like I need to read this thread trash can in hand to pick up all the garbage I read.

First law of thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

That means you are at best getting back the same amount of energy you put into a system (In a perfect world). Realistically this is not going to happen and you are going to get back less energy then you put into the system.

Ethan hit the nail over the head.

 

Since you guys seem to understand how electrolysis and thermodynamics work then what if you had the HHO water tank in a vacuum, would this be easier to create gas from this in the way water boils much faster with less heat in higher altitudes? Not sure if a significant amount can be made to have constant vacuum from say the engine intake if its making a gas and expanding inside but umm just a thought. Also what about using the engine to heat up the HHO water tank to make it near boiling point, it should be easier for electrolysis to work which according to some research like this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-te...e_electrolysis yea I know its from Wiki but whatever lol.

Oh and just so you know, I realize you cant have more than 100% efficiency here, thats not the arguement, my arguement is that we can recapture some of the wasted energy from heat for example or through braking etc. What do you guys think?

 

i know you cant make it 100 percent.but you can make it more effecient.

 

well, i just want to say it doesnt make sense to say you cant get more energy out than you put in. in theory yes, but only if you know the energy of everything involved.
that is the whole point.
using the energy in plain water, to become hydrogen, and produce power.
its like stored energy, gasoline is the same. do you need to put more energy into gasoline to get it back out? no

i hope that makes sense, and i am in no way saying i think this works at the moment.

 

Not in theory lol.. you cannot get more energy out of something than is put in. You can't just look at gas and so "oh look i spent like .000005% of my bodies total energy to light this gas and it gave me an explosion!".. You have to look at the energy it took to convert the energy that was all ready in the gasoline to mechanical energy. Everything has energy of its own, but converting that to usable energy is key. It's all about efficiency. You can have 2 engines making the same horsepower but one may use more fuel than the other. that's because one engine is much more efficient at burning the gas and converting its energy to mechanical energy that can actually be used.

That being said the energy required to obtain noticeable changes in fuel economy or whatever people try to shoot for via electrolysis is much higher than the amount of energy you get from they amount of "HHO" that is produced.

 

[QUOTE='Ethan[ws6];14995711']Not in theory lol.. you cannot get more energy out of something than is put in. QUOTE]

obviously we all should know about conservation of energy.
so its just semantics and how you want to word it.
does nuclear power give you more energy than it took to put in? yes.
does gasoline give you more energy than it took to ignite it? yes.
could hydrogen do the same thing? yes.

 

You aren't understanding at all.. everything has energy in it.. and it took energy to create it. When you ignite gasoline you only get a percentage of the energy it is capable of unleashing. Some lost in heat. When using an explosive force in the combustion chamber to move the piston (conversion to mechanical energy) you lose even more. anytime there is heat that is energy that was "wasted" in an equation.

Lighting a match and holding it to gasoline is only part of the equation and is in no way comparable to electrolysis. and no, nuclear power does not give you more energy than is initially invested.. it would help your cause if you put a little research into your arguments before posting them here.

 

I like this^^

 

maybe you should do the same.
most energy sources you can think of are positive net producer of energy, except solar. harnessing solar is limited to technological advancements, and currently the price of equipment only equals the amount of electricity absorbed over its expected life. zero net producer. as manufacturing improves and the price comes down, it will become a positive producer.
the energies that these substances contain, were not put there by us.
as long as you get more energy out of it than it took to mine it or collect it, it is producing positive net energy.

if it took more energy to obtain and use natural gas, than you get out of it, we would not use it.
if nuclear power produced less electricity than it took to create it, it would not be viable, and we would not have nuclear power plants.

i dont think you understand the theory, or like i said, its semsntics and how you choose to view the words and what they mean

you need to change you statement to ELECTROLISIS is not a viable way to produce hydrogen.
dont hate on the hydrogen itself.
as technology permits, more effiecient ways to produce or distribute hydrogen become available, it could be a good source.
does that make sense?

 

Hydrogen does give you power.. my argument this whole time was against electrolysis.. Also, you have to look at more than just what it takes to harvest energy to determine whether or not there are gains from it. You know why we use nuclear power? Not because we gain extra energy out of no where for free by using it, it's because it's the best way we have to convert it's energy into electricity that is usable in our homes.

 

Does a supercharger not give you more power than it takes to turn it?

There's a combustion efficiency improvement aspect of it just like spending a little extra crank hp to turn a supercharger means big gains in volumetric efficiency and net gains again at the crank Do I think HHO kits for cars work? No. But thinking that it stops at energy in/energy out is not correct.

 

A supercharger is only one component of the engine.if it takes x horsepower to turn the supercharger over and you can y horsepower, yes you end up with y>x but you have to look at the extra fuel used as well and the increased combustion efficiency due to higher cylinder pressures and the fact that you did extra tuning. I understand what you are trying to say but the fact is that there are more factors than just the supercharger at play.

I think (if anyone cares enough) that everyone should read this to get a better understanding on the laws of thermodynamics and why a lot of arguments here go against them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics

 

Worked "really well" on the Hindenburg.....

 

I have actually built one of these electrolysis units almost identical to the one shown in the video and even tested it on my 06 RAM didn't really see any gain or loss (Cost about 25 bucks and another 10 for a 4 pin relay and wire capable of handling the current). The amount of H2 and O2 produced can be increased by adding some form of ionic impurity to water. it decreases the waters resistance and allows more current flow that is why tap water looked to work better. con: the chloride ions in tap water corrode the hell out of the cell that was all the trash he was talking about. I used pure deionized water then added NaOH also known as lye to increase the output, still really didn't see an advantage or loss. Given the proper conditions any gasoline engine will run with it problem is there is no such thing as an ideal engine the extra load on the alternator gets rid of any gains you could possibly see from it.

The only way I can see it working is if you had some way to store it safely in some sort of pressurized vessel then released it into the intake air stream with something similar to a nitrous solenoid and jets. It would have to have some sort of independent power supply like a solar cell which would work perfect considering they produce DC voltage and in theory it would refill/re-pressurize the storage container during the day and then could later be used while running the car. That is the only way I see being able to get any real gains from this. Keep in mind that it would take a ridiculous amount of H2/O2 to run even the smallest of engines but it could be used to offset some of the demand for gasoline decreasing the amount of gas a vehicle consumes.

PRO: It can work with the right amount of engineering. Hooking it up to your 12V system wont cut it.

CON: H2 is very explosive and a pressurized tank full of it is just asking for trouble the smallest spark would be a very bad day. Keep in mind that this equipment is literally only feet away from a combustion engine and requires electricity which will spark its a** off if there is a short.

CON: Solar cells are pretty expensive and one that can put out a steady 15 to 20 amps at 12V is going to be about easily 4 or 5 square feet (Thats a lot of real estate on a car or even a truck). They are also pretty fragile.

Just my two cents

 

I agree with everything you say except the above as a nuclear power plant operator (what I do for a living) You get a whole lot more power out of a nuclear power plant than it consumes the only power consumed is what is required to run cooling pumps and oil pumps for turbines depending on the plant design usually that is 5 to 10 percent of what the total power output is in fact if you look at efficiency it is one the most efficient forms of energy we have, once again depending on design can be anywhere from 25 to 30 percent vs combustion (gasoline, coal, natural gas, ect) which is a weak 10 to 15 percent.

 

factor in the fuel source

People's largest mistake with "buying" alternative energy is their misunderstanding of the system. In the real world, energy in is ALWAYS greater than energy out. To realize this, you must look at the entire system. I'm not saying alternative energy is a scam, what I am saying is that a majority of people will overlook the energy they are putting into the system, i.e. electricity from the alternator, and think they are getting more energy out. As long as you know that energy in will be greater than energy out, you're ok and the key to making that work would be something like what was quoted above with the solar panels. The problem is finding cheap, efficient input energy and as stated, solar panels are not it.