Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[mwiener2]

 

So another curveball that nobody has mentioned in any of the posts... you usually use a water/lye or other such chemicals to help make this reaction go faster/easier. It certainly helps out the arguement a little.

 

nope, it doesn't

[AKLGT]

we used mineral water. but again, it was constant fill, check amperage, see if it was working, blah blah. and since I had it trunk mounted, it made it that much more difficult to check, back and forth in the car to check the amp meter and then under the hood to make sure nothing was leaking. So, yes, though it gave me an extra 5 mpg city, if I were to calculate my time and energy I spent checking all the hoses, water levels, amps, etc, I think I was in the red. This is from a financial and time consuming aspect.

 

and fwiw, we created another HHO/brown's gas/whatever you want to call it system and did light it. it was a small "POP" and light on fire. so yes, the vapor was flammable. and that was only running off of an 12V battery.

[mwiener2]

Yeah, it went pop. How long till it built up enough to go pop again? Unless it can sustain a flame, it's not enough to make a difference, even a minimal one.

[AShoe]

You can split water very easily into hydrogen and oxygen. The problem with this process is sheer energy loss. A very efficient internal combustion engine converts about 35% of the chemical energy from fuel into mechanical energy (rotation in the crankshaft). This energy spins the alternator which is able to convert about 40% of the mechanical energy into electrical energy. A very good hydrogen generator might be able to use 70% of the electricity it uses to make fuel (hydrogen and oxygen). In other words this process uses ten times more energy than it could possibly make. The only reason these things don't totally ruin your gas mileage is they don't work very well.

[mwiener2]

an alternator is quite a bit more efficient than 40%...... Try like 95%

[JonnyD3487]

I have a bunch of stuff about this my neighbor gave me. Diagrams and all kinds of shit. He had it on his old diesel golf, and wants me to test it out on a MAF car. I told him I'd think about it but I have no intentions of actually doing it.

 

Email me if you want to see the diagrams and crap if you're interested.

 

slightly-removed@hotmail.com

[qiman]

Good to see this kind of thread, however all the skeptics are 100% wrong.

 

First of all, thermodynamics that everyone quotes is EQUILIBRIUM

thermodynamics, which only apply to closed systems.

 

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics apply to systems that are out of

equilibrium, which is what the chemistry behind HHO is.

 

It is NOT the HHO that is necessarily exploding to make more power, it

is a CATALYST that helps to break the hydrocarbon fuel molecule into

smaller chains and thereby increasing the surface area, which will allow

you to get more power from the same fuel - MORE than the electricity to

create the HHO to begin with.

 

If you have any positive ions in the presence of a hydrocarbon molecule,

it will strip electrons from it to balance itself and thereby breaking that

molecule into a smaller molecule - more surface area - more energy

released.

 

Everyone quoting thermodynamics that can't be broken really doesn't

even know the distinctions!

 

The refrigerator in your house violates conventional closed system

thermodynamics as your refrigerator is performing 300% MORE work than

the joules of energy you consume from the wall to power the compressor.

It has a COP (coefficient of performance) of about 3.0. 3 times MORE

than you pay for. That is because it is an OPEN system where only

non-equilibrium thermodynamics (the kind you normally do NOT learn

in school) govern those systems. OPEN DISSIPATIVE SYSTEMS.

 

You convert the watt hours from the wall into BTU's. That is your input.

Then you calculate how many BTU's of heat were moved around in your

system - you do NOT have to pay for the environmental heat to move

towards cold, which moves for free by itself. That total BTU of heat

movement is about 3 times MORE than the BTU equivelant that you drew

from the wall. That is a 300% GAIN in calculatable joules of work done.

 

There is MORE energy out than you put in - that means there is extra input

free from the environment that you DON'T pay for. MORE out than YOU

put in - that does not mean more out than total energy goes in. That is

the whole point of having a COP measurement, which is different from

efficiency.

 

All systems that are over 1.0 COP - all systems in nature are all over

1.0 cop systems but are still under 100% efficient since there is dissipation.

 

Chemical systems are often over 1.0 cop meaning more work in joules

of energy are being done than joules of energy input into the system.

When you say the word SYNERGY - the end result is more than the sum

of the parts - that is because MORE is being done than is put into it.

 

HHO systems are open systems.

 

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.html

 

Ilya Prigogine got the Nobel prize in chemistry for open dissipative systems.

An open system dissipates energy but environmental input comes into the

system so it can't come into equilibrium - thereby producing MORE work

on the output than we have to put into it.

[fahr_side]

Air fuel ratio is a ratio of fuel injected to air injested. It's actually a mass ratio, NOT a volume ratio. The stoichiometric ratio for gasoline is 14.7 (I can go through the calculations to get here if necessary). That means that, for every mass unit fuel, we need 14.7 mass units of oxygen (oxygen, not just air).

IIRC, AFR stands for 'air-fuel ratio'. If it meant 'oxygen-fuel ratio' it'd be called OFR instead. You are right that it's mass we are talking about, but the 14.7:1 ratio discussed is based on mass of air, not oxygen.

[NSFW]

It is NOT the HHO that is necessarily exploding to make more power, it

is a CATALYST that helps to break the hydrocarbon fuel molecule into

smaller chains and thereby increasing the surface area, which will allow

you to get more power from the same fuel - MORE than the electricity to

create the HHO to begin with.

 

Please elaborate... For example, what are those "smaller chains," chemically speaking? What's the chemical balance of each of the reactions, and how is it different from regular combustion?

[BAC5.2]

Holy thread bump.

 

NSFW - It isn't.

 

Fahr - Combustion is an oxidation process, and oxygen is the driving factor. Without oxygen, well, ever tried to light a candle in a sealed container? So while AFR means "air-to-fuel" ratio, that's not exactly correct if you break down chemical combustion equations. If you actually look at how to get the magic 14.7 stoich ratio, it boils down to oxygen to fuel ratio.

 

Take Methane, CH4.

 

The combustion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H20

 

The molar mass of methane is 16.042g. The molar mass of Oxygen is 32g. So the oxygen-fuel ratios is 64/16.042=3.99

 

That's 3.99mass units of oxygen for every mass unit of fuel. Air is 23.5% oxygen, and since that number is fixed, we can multiply 3.99 times 100/23.5 and get the air-fuel ratio of 17.2 for methane.

 

Oxygen is all that matters when discussing the combustion process.

 

Why Qiman is suggesting, is that we can create energy. If that were the case, then cars would have been running on Evian a long time ago.

[fahr_side]

Oxygen is all that matters when discussing the combustion process.

Not really. Try running on 100% pure oxygen and see what happens. Nitrogen is essential to turn explosion into controlled burn.

 

I have no issue with your math, but terminology is also important.

[BAC5.2]

Pure oxygen is used as fuel.

 

You are absolutely right, nitrogen (and other elements) are used to slow oxidation rate, but the driving factor for burning is still oxygen. Nitrogen is, for all practical intents and purposes, inert. Explosion vs. burning are matters of rate. Nothing else. Speed up the reaction, and you get a violent explosion. Slow down the reaction, and you get a very slow burn.

 

Engines can ONLY burn the amount of fuel that there is oxygen there to facilitate burning. Pump in more fuel without increasing oxygen content, and you are doing little more than spending money. Pump in more oxygen without fuel, and you run lean.

 

The increase in hydrogen content in the air will definitely increase combustion efficiency, but not in a massively substantial way. Certainly not enough to offset the damage that could be caused by this process.

[05COLEGGT]

I can speak from personal experience that people might think this works due to initial positive results. From what I saw the initial positive results came about from how the injection skewed the few trims causing the AFR to run slightly leaner than normal. I could see how if you had a big enough generator to supply the needed Hydrogen volume an engine consumes throughout the entire rev/load range the long term MPG increase could be substantial, but in order to have a large enough generator you would need a lot of cells weighing 100's of pounds. The added weight would probably offset any potential gains.

Another thing to consider is the modern Engine Control Unit constantly adjusts timing and fueling based on the programming from the factory. This programming did not include the ability to optimize the combustion of 'brown gas'. In my experience over time the ECU would cancel out any initial benefits I saw. You would need to optimize the ECU to really take advantage of the brown gas to really see any long term benefits.

I won't even get into how destructive it is to your battery and alternator to be constantly sucking upwards of 50 amps from them while the fuel cells are engaged. I went through 2 alternators and 3 batteries while I was experimenting. The costs of those components and the cost of building the fuel cell, as well as the continual maintenance of the cell itself made it not worth it in my opinion.

[qiman]

Please elaborate... For example, what are those "smaller chains," chemically speaking? What's the chemical balance of each of the reactions, and how is it different from regular combustion?

 

Hydrocarbon molecules are grouped in "clusters" in addition to the fact

that the hydrogen in these molecules are primarily parahydrogen, meaning

the hydrogen atoms next to each other are pulled very close to each other.

The spins are "anti-parallel". There is reduced surface area of the hydrogen

for oxygen to attach in addition to the fact that the clusters are bound

together further reducing overall surface area.

 

When a cluster is broken apart, more is exposed so more can be burned.

Nothing magical. HHO, permanent magnets (used properly) or electrostatics

such as what the oil industry is moving towards to reduce the viscocity

of crude oil to reduce pumping energy can all break the clusters into

smaller clusters - making the fuel "wetter" - reduced surface tension and

the fuel can atomize more effectively.

 

Some of the parahydrogen in the hydrocarbon molecule become

orthohydrogen and they "repel" away from each other opening up more

area for oxygen to get to.

 

Orthohydrogen releases 3 times more power than parahydrogen when

combusted but you won't get 3 times more power in a car because the

ICE is one of the least efficient systems for producing mechanical work

you can get but the increase is still significant.

 

The is no change in the combustion itself except for more of the hydrogen

is exposed so that more of it can burn - it is as simple as that. HHO is

not about exploding the HHO in an engine to increase the force that the

piston experiences during combustion.

 

Why? Because when HHO is combusted, it instantly recombines to form a

water molecule thus shrinking right back down in volume - so the next

thermal expansion is practically nothing from the HHO itself - CATALYST

for the hydrocarbon fuel. That is what all these HHO booster "gurus"

don't know and neither do the skeptics because they can't get out of

their own way long enough to actually do the research.

 

I hope this is somewhat helpful to you.

[mwiener2]

 

First of all, thermodynamics that everyone quotes is EQUILIBRIUM

thermodynamics, which only apply to closed systems.

 

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics apply to systems that are out of

equilibrium, which is what the chemistry behind HHO is.

 

Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is out there with quantum physics... except most scientists believe quantum physics is real. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics theories came about when scientists had trouble explaining what was happening in very large systems (ie. things that happen in nature) It is also used as a lame explanation of why HHO should work.

 

It is NOT the HHO that is necessarily exploding to make more power, it

is a CATALYST that helps to break the hydrocarbon fuel molecule into

smaller chains and thereby increasing the surface area, which will allow

you to get more power from the same fuel - MORE than the electricity to

create the HHO to begin with.

 

It has been known for a very long time that the Hydrogen can increase combustion efficiency. But an HHO generator simply doesn't make enough H to do anything. Some big trucks use Hydrogen injection for this purpose, but they have large tanks of compressed Hydrogen to accomplish this. One of those tanks holds more hydrogen than a car mounted HHO generator could make in a week.

 

If you have any positive ions in the presence of a hydrocarbon molecule,

it will strip electrons from it to balance itself and thereby breaking that

molecule into a smaller molecule - more surface area - more energy

released.

 

Not enough Ions to make a difference.

 

Everyone quoting thermodynamics that can't be broken really doesn't

even know the distinctions!

 

OK Einstein, make up some more physics laws while your're at it.

 

The refrigerator in your house violates conventional closed system

thermodynamics as your refrigerator is performing 300% MORE work than

the joules of energy you consume from the wall to power the compressor.

It has a COP (coefficient of performance) of about 3.0. 3 times MORE

than you pay for. That is because it is an OPEN system where only

non-equilibrium thermodynamics (the kind you normally do NOT learn

in school) govern those systems. OPEN DISSIPATIVE SYSTEMS.

 

I happen to be an expert in exactly this.. so let me rip you a new one here: A refrigerator or an air conditioner are really heat pumps. They MOVE heat from one place to another. Because they are not generating heat and only moving it, they have high efficiency rates. It is easier to look at it on the heating side rather than the cooling side. 1 watt of electrical energy put into resistance heat gives you about 3.41 BTU's of heat energy (We are converting electricity into heat). 1 watt of electrical energy put into a heat pump gives you about 9.8 BTU's of heat energy (The electricity was used to do work rather than convert it into another form of energy). That's where your 300% comes from.... but you don't get that same efficiency on the cooling side because you are trying to move against nature and the laws of thermodynamics.

 

You convert the watt hours from the wall into BTU's. That is your input.

Then you calculate how many BTU's of heat were moved around in your

system - you do NOT have to pay for the environmental heat to move

towards cold, which moves for free by itself. That total BTU of heat

movement is about 3 times MORE than the BTU equivelant that you drew

from the wall. That is a 300% GAIN in calculatable joules of work done.

 

Again, moving energy, not creating it. And the calculations from electricity to BTU's is hardly perfect nor does it take into account losses at the generation facility which you would need to take into account when figuring out these perpetual motion machines.

 

There is MORE energy out than you put in - that means there is extra input

free from the environment that you DON'T pay for. MORE out than YOU

put in - that does not mean more out than total energy goes in. That is

the whole point of having a COP measurement, which is different from

efficiency.

 

No, in your example there is more HEAT, but not more energy floating around. Heat is a measurement of energy, temperature is a measurement of heat. You don't get free movement from the environment either. You've used mechanical work (compressor) to create a pressure differential and thus a temperature differential. The environmental heat only moves towards the system because we humans made it colder. It's not free.

 

All systems that are over 1.0 COP - all systems in nature are all over

1.0 cop systems but are still under 100% efficient since there is dissipation.

 

Chemical systems are often over 1.0 cop meaning more work in joules

of energy are being done than joules of energy input into the system.

When you say the word SYNERGY - the end result is more than the sum

of the parts - that is because MORE is being done than is put into it.

 

I'm not even sure what you are talking about... but there isn't any free energy floating around. In most chemical reactions (fire) the energy is stored in the chemical. You do something to it that causes it to release that energy. Once it's released, it's gone. You get more out than you put in because it is releasing the stored energy, not making it. The energy you put in only started the reaction.

 

HHO systems are open systems.

 

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1977/prigogine-lecture.html

 

Ilya Prigogine got the Nobel prize in chemistry for open dissipative systems.

An open system dissipates energy but environmental input comes into the

system so it can't come into equilibrium - thereby producing MORE work

on the output than we have to put into it.

 

That's nice he got a peace prize for a lecture he held once... but that doesn't prove him right or have anything to do with HHO.I didn't really read most of that, nor am I gonna say I understood the equations... but I do know this; "A general result is that to violate inequality (3.6) we need autocatalytic

reactions. More precisely autocatalytic steps are necessary (but not sufficient)

conditions for the breakdown of the stability of the thermodynamical branch." An HHO generator is not an autocatalytic chemical process and therefore has nothing to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I'm also pretty sure these systems on our cars would be CLOSED since they are NOT receiving any energy from outside sources other than those we control.

 

From what I saw the initial positive results came about from how the injection skewed the few trims causing the AFR to run slightly leaner than normal.... you would need a lot of cells weighing 100's of pounds. The added weight would probably offset any potential gains.

In my experience over time the ECU would cancel out any initial benefits I saw. You would need to optimize the ECU to really take advantage of the brown gas to really see any long term benefits.

 

Correct, the way the cell attaches to the engine creates a vacuum leak which causes it go lean. The ECU will try to correct this lean condition... thus negating any benefits. Those 100's of cells you would need do weigh alot, but more importantly, they don't get charged for free. If all you needed was more batteries, Prius's would have HHO generators instead of electric motors. You'd drain all your batteries while you were out driving and there is no way an alternator would charge them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this horse dead yet? I bet people who think HHO works are also very disappointed they didn't ascend the other day.

[qiman]

So while AFR means "air-to-fuel" ratio, that's not exactly correct if you break down chemical combustion equations. If you actually look at how to get the magic 14.7 stoich ratio, it boils down to oxygen to fuel ratio.

 

Why Qiman is suggesting, is that we can create energy. If that were the case, then cars would have been running on Evian a long time ago.

 

14.7 ONLY applies if you're using conventional spark ignition, peaking caps

or CDI. Plasma jet ignition allows you to get proper combustion with it's

monstrous current impulse. It literally pulls apart oxygen and hydrogen from

the moisture in the air on contact and it literally pulls apart the hydrocarbon

molecule so more hydrogen is able to be burned with the present oxygen.

That means you can lean it out up to 17:1 or 20:1 or a little leaner

and still get FULL power, no overheating, etc... Do you research.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth of what I am suggestion. YOU are

suggesting that by not understanding why HHO works.

 

It isn't creating energy, it is common sense.

[rao]

Subscribed for the eventual application to a perpetual motion machine. Imagine using this on a perpetual motion machine: IT WOULD GENERATE FREE ENERGY FOREVER !!!!!!

[qiman]

Not really. Try running on 100% pure oxygen and see what happens. Nitrogen is essential to turn explosion into controlled burn.

 

I have no issue with your math, but terminology is also important.

 

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

 

Nitrogen is VERY IMPORTANT but most people don't get that - it goes

beyond terminology.

 

If you dilute pure HHO with nitrogen, you SLOW THE BURN and increase it's

octane close to that of gasoline. You DOUBLE the volume of fuel by adding

nitrogen to the HHO at the point of exit where the HHO is produced

and slow its burn. This is all important but most people are only using

HHO - it hits nitrogen when it gets to the intake but the mixing needs to

be done very close to the point of production. This is a whole world on

its own but it appears to be a waste of time to share it here unfortunately.

[qiman]

I'm also pretty sure these systems on our cars would be CLOSED since they are NOT receiving any energy from outside sources other than those we control.

 

Is this horse dead yet? I bet people who think HHO works are also very disappointed they didn't ascend the other day.

 

 

The engine is open to the air and it is a non-equilibrium system. If it was

closed, you would have a FIXED amount of environmental air in a container

and that is all you have and will have to only run on that and recycle 100%

of the exhaust back to that tank. IF you did that, then your engine is a

closed system and THEN conventional closed system thermodynamics apply. Sorry, but you apparently don't even know the difference.

 

I prefer to have an intelligent discussion with open minded people that

don't think they know it all or have to insult people because they believe

differently. That may be your way, not mine.

[LongHiway]

I've seen this described as one of tose classic conspiracy stories. The big energy companies have conspired with (all, [sIC]) auto-makers to prevent this technology from being incorporated into every car and truck sold in order to make maintain engine inefficiencies so as to maximize oil company profits. Well, the oil company profits are spot on.

[BAC5.2]

14.7 ONLY applies if you're using conventional spark ignition, peaking caps

or CDI. Plasma jet ignition allows you to get proper combustion with it's

monstrous current impulse. It literally pulls apart oxygen and hydrogen from

the moisture in the air on contact and it literally pulls apart the hydrocarbon

molecule so more hydrogen is able to be burned with the present oxygen.

That means you can lean it out up to 17:1 or 20:1 or a little leaner

and still get FULL power, no overheating, etc... Do you research.

 

Please don't put words in my mouth of what I am suggestion. YOU are

suggesting that by not understanding why HHO works.

 

It isn't creating energy, it is common sense.

 

Are you SERIOUSLY telling ME to do my research? Are you kidding? Is this like some stupid reality-internet TV show?

 

What's the combustion equation for Hydrogen? I'll wait for you to google it.

 

How are you going to say that you can burn more hydrogen with the present oxygen? There is a fixed stoichiometric relationship between hydrogen and pure oxygen (and, as I proved before, this stoichiometric relationship is directly proportional to "air"). Hydrogen is going to burn exactly how much oxygen there is to facilitate. You can't saturate something in hydrogen without proportionally increasing the oxygen available to fuel it, and that principal is universal. Pure hydrogen, without an oxidizing agent, won't burn. Period.

 

Nothing burns without oxygen. It's in the definition of the word!

[mwiener2]

14.7 ONLY applies if you're using conventional spark ignition, peaking caps

or CDI.

O wait, you mean like on ALL modern engines...

 

I'd also like to see an engine run 20:1 on gasoline, make good power, and you can use laser plugs if you want.

 

If it was

closed, you would have a FIXED amount of environmental air in a container

and that is all you have and will have to only run on that and recycle 100%

of the exhaust back to that tank. IF you did that, then your engine is a

closed system and THEN conventional closed system thermodynamics apply. Sorry, but you apparently don't even know the difference.

 

Lemme difference you on this.... Because the air we use is "air' and "air" is pretty much the same no matter where we grab it from, it can be considered a constant. The actual combustion takes place inside a sealed cylinder... you're noble peace prize guy was talking about stuff in open environments.

 

Funny how you have no comment on the 5 other things I shot you down on which were alot more relevant than open or closed system.

 

 

Brown gas is as good as the brown gas that comes out of a horse's rear. Actually, the horse probably makes more usable gas in a day.

 

 

 

The fact that both BAC5.2 and I are on the same side should say something here too

[BAC5.2]

Well of course there is no comment on the other 5 things you said! 12th order, nonlinear, makingshitupamics says that you ignore when someone pokes holes in your logic.

[TiredGXP]

Why do I keep clicking on threads like this?

 

Bac5.2 and mweiner2 already have the logic side of the arguement covered.

 

But it looks like qiman is doing teh magic Jedi hand wave to dismiss logic....

[qiman]

Funny how you have no comment on the 5 other things I shot you down on which were alot more relevant than open or closed system.

 

You have yourself convinced that you know what you're talking about.

 

A cooling system can have over 1.0 cop. A refrigerator EASILY can remove

2 parts heat for 1 part of energy input. Whether or not the heat side or

the cold side is more efficient or not is irrelevant. BOTH are under 100%

efficient yet BOTH are over 1.0 COP. MORE work in joules of energy

done that we input into the system. My refrigerator example is ACCURATE

and no amount of your obfuscation will change that - only someone that

is ignorant and chooses to remain so will blindly go along with your

bogus explanations without doing their due diligence and actually

researching the matter.

 

Your other points are ridiculous and you didn't even know what an

open system is trying to tell me and everyone else that a gasoline engine

is a closed system because there is no other energy input source.

A gasoline engine is OPEN to it's environment and has free exchange with

atmospheric gases, works is done and there is dissipation - it is open

no matter how you want to create fake explanations that it isn't an

open system.

 

Making up laws of physics? You have proven yourself to not even know

the difference. Prigogine is one of the most respected thermodynamicists

in the world - someone that just gave a talk? roflmao!

 

Plasma jet ignitions alone without water injection or hho can combust

a leaner mixture with no problems because there is always moisture in

the air, which gets ripped apart and ionized and that acts as a catalyst

on demand to break down the hydrocarbon molecules.

 

It is possible that you are right and NASA, other governmental agencies,

DOE and countless universites, etc... are wrong but - i don't think so!

 

Your statement here says it all: "Non-equilibrium thermodynamics is out there with quantum physics... except most scientists believe quantum physics is real. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics theories came about when scientists had trouble explaining what was happening in very large systems (ie. things that happen in nature) It is also used as a lame explanation of why HHO should work."

 

Came about when trying to explain what happens in large systems?

 

EVERY natural system big or small is a non-equilibrium system. What you

are saying is pure unadulterated b.s. I would challenge anyone here that

is drinking your koolaid to go research it.

 

A kid flies a kite - that is a non-equilibrium system where more work is

done than joules of energy he puts in.

 

The kid spends 10 parts of energy to just get the kite in the air for

example - he flies it for an hour barely even having to do anything - can

practically tie it to a chair and it will stay airborne itself. 990 parts of

WORK is being done with the kite staying airborne. That is 1000 parts

TOTAL input.

 

It fights against wind, gravity, etc... so there are loses, even if there is

50% losses, that is only 500 parts in REAL WORK being done.

 

1000 parts in divided by 500 out = 50% efficient - not very efficient.

 

However, 500 parts out divided by what the kid put in 10 = COP 50.

 

That is a 5000% net GAIN in work done compared to what the kid had

to invest. That is an open system - an open dissipative non-equilibrium

system.

 

That is the simple distinction between efficiency and cop, which most

people don't even know.

 

A windmill or solar panel has a COP of INFINITE, there is 0 required

input from the operator.

 

You can't debate this unless you actually know the difference, which

you have proven that you absolutely do not know.

 

I would challenge anyone here that debates this to go research

non-equilibrium systems. It is taught in sociology - a self organizing system

such as a community is a non-equilibrium system. It is taught in biology

as a biological organism is negentropic as it self-organizes and defeats

closed system thermodynamics. There are countless examples.

 

Saying it is out there with quantum physics is so completely and utterly

laughable there are no words to describe it.

 

It is only the ignorant that has perpetuated the stupid myth that

thermodynamics cannot be broken and they do not even know that

thermodynamics has been extended for decades to include open

dissipative systems - to finally accurately describe them since

conventional thermodynamics NEVER did! lol

 

HHO works, period - it is a catalyst and no amount of your pixie dust

to keep people asleep will change the facts.