Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[fahr_side]

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!

 

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

beyond terminology.

I do hope that no-one here assumes that because you agree with me, I agree with you.

[NSFW]

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.

 

I can't tell if you're talking about clusters of atoms within individual molecules, or clusters of molecules grouped together. Which is it?

 

Also, how does HHO break these clusters apart?

[mwiener2]

The HHO doesn't. Plasma Ignition does.

 

 

Mods, could you please delete the random posts, and leave the thread open?

 

You do know you can delete your own posts?

[dr_sharp]

The wind is the source of the energy. The sun powers the wind. It all has to come from somewhere.

I happen to be an expert in exactly this..

This has nothing to do with the forum or even cars. It's basic science.

You do know you can delete your own posts?

Where to begin...

[qiman]

I can't tell if you're talking about clusters of atoms within individual molecules, or clusters of molecules grouped together. Which is it?

 

Also, how does HHO break these clusters apart?

 

Molecular clusters - "HHO" actually is not just H and OH or other simple

variations - I give references in another post, Grubb, Davy, etc... a strong

ionic molecule is formed that can even reduce molecular nitrogen and

by being so positively charged, it rips electrons from the carbon bonds

and shortens the chains.

[qiman]

Where to begin...

 

Thanks for your posts at attempting to keep things in a positive direction

whether you agree with my points or not. I appreciate it.

[qiman]

I do hope that no-one here assumes that because you agree with me, I agree with you.

 

That is fine and I didn't imply it. Besides, you don't even realize the

significance of your own point - that is fine too.

[qiman]

COP was coined by the EPA and the Refrigeration industry to help sell refrigeration units. You are trying to apply it to physics in an ridiculous manner.

 

@ mwiener on your points

@ all on the others...

 

You do have this point correct. Yes, COP was coined for heat

systems - and for your information even thermodynamics was for HEAT

systems and only heat systems and don't even apply to electromagnetics,

and THAT is something that thermodynamics is being applied to in a most

ridiculous manner.

 

COP is a ratio between JOULES OF WORK OUT compared to JOULES OF WORK

THAT WE PUT IN. (it does NOT count free environmental input such as

environmental heat that will move for free all by itself towards cold) -

this obviously is why it can be over 1.0 cop but always under 100%

efficiency. My kite flying analogy is ACCURATE and that systems is

WAY over 1.0 cop but is still under 50% efficient.

 

It is completely unnecessary to create a new term to describe the

ratio between output compared to OUR input because COP ALREADY does

that and is a proper use of the acronym. COP has been applied to

COUNTLESS systems other than heat systems for many years. Not sure

how this has evaded you being an expert in heat pump systems and all.

 

ALL open systems have output and input. Some of those open systems

have input that is completely from the environment (solar or wind or

an atom) and some have environmental input in addition to our input

such as a refrigerator, AC or a pendulum (our push and then gravitational

potential input).

 

The open systems that have both environmental input AND input from

us will therefore have a ratio between output and OUR input NOT

counting environmental input and that IS a coefficient of performance.

 

Claiming that I am applying COP to physics in a ridiculous manner does

NOT show what you know - it simply demonstrates exactly what you do

not know.

 

Electromagnetic systems, wind power, etc... are all properly measured

in both efficiency AND cop, period.

 

You are not really making any valid points - you are simply arguing for

what you already believe in based on your own finite currently existing

knowledge base without actually taking the time to expand that

knowledge base, which has so many logical fallacies it will not hold water.

 

I'm not interested in arguing with you. I see what you believe and can

see what you understand and what you don't. That is fine. I'm just

interested in shining some light on a subject that only a handful of

people even understand. There are VERY FEW that understand that

hho is acting as a catalyst.

 

But when you want to make a point at least use elementary logic before

posting something that has more holes than Swiss cheese.

 

COP is used in wind power, electromagnetics, etc... in wind there are

some tweaks in the calculations of what is considered cop since there is

no input from us, just environmental. But the point is that the concept

of COP is used in various fields and NOT just heat pump systems as you

wrongly claim and try to mock.

 

HHO is NOT the same as water. Water is HOH. HHO represents a

hydrogen atom and a diatomic molecule of OH, it is simply representative

of the general make up of the gas and is NOT meant to show a literal single

molecule of H-H-O.

 

You say there is not enough ions available in HHO to do anything such

as reduce the hydrocarbon molecule into smaller pieces. Where do you

get that stuff? You just make it up out of thin air?

 

Silica hydride is the most concentrated antioxidant - negatively charged

hydrogen - has 2 electrons attached per hydrogen atom. When it gives

off an electron to neutralize a free radical in the body, it does not itself

become a free radical of a lesser kind. It is the only one that does not

turn into a free radical itself. Now, one single capsule of that has more

electrons that can be donated that many pounds of vitamin C, which is

also an anti-oxidant. Why? Because each atom can neutralize a free

radical whereas with vitamin c, each giant molecule can only neutralize

a free radical. Not sure if you get the point.

 

A small amount of commonly ducted electrolyzed water can create a lot

of ions that are sufficient in quantity for an amount of very large

hydrocarbon molecules. Basically, a small amount of atomic ions

can reduce a high volume of large hydrocarbon molecules.

 

ALSO, the notion that H and OH are primarily freed or even pure hydrogen

molecules or pure hydrogen are very short sighted explanations. There

are ALWAYS other forms of these molecules present but you won't know

that unless you study Sir Humphrey Davy back to the early 1800's,

Langmuir, A.C. Grubb, J.J. Thompson, etc... when they did real science

without a lot of jargon and obfuscation of the simple facts as

"scientists" of today like to do in order to feel they earned their degrees.

 

What I'm alluding to can reduce molecular nitrogen from the air. Nitrogen

has a triple electron bond and is the strongest molecular bond to break.

It is not easy to ionize it at low power. However, the HHO cell produces

something that will reduce a nitrogen molecule meaning it is very

ionized and a hydrocarbon molecule is a piece of cake for it. It can easily

break two carbon atoms away from each other to break the molecule

into a smaller chain.

 

Anyway, trying to make an argument that I don't know that a refrigerator

is a backwards heat pump is a shining example of your M.O. I never said

it wasn't and I'm fully aware it is a backwards heat pump. It was YOU

that tried to make an irrelevant point that the cooling side is lower

efficiency. I simply pointed out it was irrelevant because being on the

cooling or heating side is still producing MORE work in measurable joules

of energy than we put into it. You're creating an argument about

something I never argued so that anyone that isn't paying attention will

think I'm some fool for not knowing a refrigerator is a backwards heat

pump.

 

And to the person discussing word wrap on my posts - has nothing of

value to contribute to the contribution and feels compelled to stoop to

such a low level as to attack the way I type. It is INTENTIONAL

because it is less fatiguing and easier to read a paragraph that only

goes half way across the screen instead of having to track all the way

across the screen. You could use a lesson in psychology as well as

a lesson in manners.

 

Just fyi...

 

In 2007, the U.S. Federal govt finally had to admit hho boosters are a

valid technology and are even more beneficial for diesels than gasoline

engines.

 

Almost 100 page report:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/Guidelines-H2-Fuel-in-CMVs-Nov2007.pdf

 

"This document was developed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration as a reference for commercial vehicle fleet owners and operators who use hydrogen fuel in their vehicles, and it primarily focuses on safety. All motor fuels, including diesel fuel, gasoline, and natural gas pose risks of fire and explosion if handled improperly. Hydrogen is no different."

 

"1.2.3 Hydrogen Injection Systems

A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen on demand by electrolyzing water carried onboard the vehicle. The electricity required is supplied by the engine’s alternator or 12/24-volt electrical system (see Section 1.5 for a description of electrolysis). The hydrogen and oxygen are injected into the engine’s air intake manifold, where they mix with the intake air. In theory, the combustion properties of the hydrogen result in more complete combustion of diesel fuel in the engine, reducing tailpipe emissions and improving fuel economy (CHEC, n.d.). Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use and a 7 percent reduction in particulate emissions with the system on (ETVC, 2005).

A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces and uses significantly less hydrogen than a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE, and does not require that compressed or liquid hydrogen be carried on the vehicle. The system is designed to produce hydrogen only when required, in response to driver throttle commands. When the system is shut-off, no hydrogen is present on the vehicle."

 

There are actually many more tests done showing that HHO just plain

works. This is the only one in this report.

 

Anyway, to the post about it being worthless in a car because the

air fuel mixture will just sabotage it - yes, it will to a point but you can

still get a gain. Use an EFIE circuit in series with the o2 sensor and

computer. A led controller chip to intercept the voltage and drop the

voltage before sending it to the computer to let it think the mixture

actually isn't too lean. A cheap method is to use a diode with a known

voltage drop so no matter what, the voltage drops regardless of what

is being spit out. Of course either of these should only be used IF there

is an HHO booster or something else that actually improves the burn

otherwise it will run too lean.

 

MAP/MAF sensor mods can be done but be careful if you don't know

what you're doing.

 

With the PLASMA JET IGNITION being able to run an engine leaner than

normal - I can run a lawnmower at full power with a plasma ignition system

with only the idle jet giving fuel - no overheating - actually, it runs cooler.

And I mentioned the plasma creates the HHO catalyst from plain

moisture on contact - so the more moisture the better.

 

But here are some docs you can look at on your own:

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asae.org+%22plasma+jet+ignition%22+lean

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.gov+%22plasma+jet+ignition%22

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A.edu+%22plasma+jet+ignition%22+lean+gasoline

 

The plasma jet ignition systems help engines run leaner and that applies

to corn fuel, propane, methane, gasoline, etc... ignition also doesn't

have to be as delayed either. Flame propagation is faster and more full

into the chamber and with the hundreds of thousands of watt pulses

in microseconds, that rips the fuel and air molecules apart in a way that

any spark or enhanced spark ignition system can never do. Laser ignition

doesn't have anything to do with plasma jet ignition.

[mwiener2]

Are you talking about cars or a colon cleanse? My engine doesn't need any vitamin C

 

 

Every point that you have made, I have and will continue to prove wrong with simple facts. You have alot of talk, but no proof. You post links to articles ABOUT stuff, but no proof. And there are no production vehicles with plasma ignition so drop it.

 

 

 

"In 2007, the U.S. Federal govt finally had to admit hho boosters are a

valid technology and are even more beneficial for diesels than gasoline

engines. " They didn't admit anything. It's no secret that hydrogen injection works.... but it comes from a compressed storage cylinder. You cannot make it onboard and get a net gain.

[fahr_side]

That is fine and I didn't imply it. Besides, you don't even realize the

significance of your own point - that is fine too.

Oh, I understand your theory, I just don't agree with it. If you can't deal with that in a mature way, that's your problem.

[NSFW]

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

 

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?

 

I am still hoping for an answer to this question...

 

Burning gasoline and oxygen is mostly about turning a few different hydrocarbons (C8H18, C9H20, C8H10, etc) into CO2 and H20. What I want to know is, what are the hydrocarbons after HHO has had a chance to "break the hydrocarbon fuel molecule into smaller chains?"

 

C8H18 gets broken down into... what?

C9H20 gets broken down into... what?

...and so on.

[NSFW]

Almost 100 page report:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-resea...Vs-Nov2007.pdf

 

That report appears to have almost 100 pages of information about hydrogen engines and the infrastructure to support them, and three paragraphs of information about hydrogen injection for diesel engines. It does little to make the case that "HHO" adds value to gasoline engines.

[qiman]

Are you talking about cars or a colon cleanse? My engine doesn't need any vitamin C

 

 

Every point that you have made, I have and will continue to prove wrong with simple facts. You have alot of talk, but no proof. You post links to articles ABOUT stuff, but no proof. And there are no production vehicles with plasma ignition so drop it.

 

 

 

"In 2007, the U.S. Federal govt finally had to admit hho boosters are a

valid technology and are even more beneficial for diesels than gasoline

engines. " They didn't admit anything. It's no secret that hydrogen injection works.... but it comes from a compressed storage cylinder. You cannot make it onboard and get a net gain.

 

 

Real cute on the vit c slam - you either are incapable of comprehending

the analogy or you think these childish remarks that are obviously

irrelevant to the point I made is able to throw people in the wrong

direction - I'm betting the average person has enough common sense to

get the picture.

 

You haven't proven ANYTHING. I provided references to back my claims

and you are simply doing nothing but puffing hot air. I posted references

to SAE, govt sponsored studies, etc... and you post nothing. What I have

done is shown credibility to my claims as real research is showing the

same thing and you are simply busy listening to yourself impersonate

James Randi.

 

"In 2007, the U.S. Federal govt finally had to admit hho boosters are a

valid technology and are even more beneficial for diesels than gasoline

engines. " They didn't admit anything. It's no secret that hydrogen injection works.... but it comes from a compressed storage cylinder. You cannot make it onboard and get a net gain.

 

That GAIN of 4% and a reduction of 7% in emissions is NOT from

compressed hydrogen - it is from an HHO booster. From the report:

 

"3.5 HYDROGEN INJECTION SYSTEMS Hydrogen injection systems create small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis, to supplement the diesel fuel in a standard diesel engine. See Sections 1.2.3 and 1.5. A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces and uses significantly less hydrogen than a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE, and does not require that compressed or liquid hydrogen be carried on the vehicle. The system is designed to produce hydrogen only when required, in response to driver throttle commands. When the system is shut off, no hydrogen should be present on the vehicle."

 

That is an HHO commonly ducted electrolysis unit they are talking about.

Why you continue to deceive people with outrageous misinformation is

beyond me - especially when it is right in the document I posted but

you want people to take your word for it instead of reading it for

themselves. This ill informed attitude of yours got yourself such high

respect in this forum? We can both talk cars, that is fine, but you are

clearly out of your league when it comes to electricity and chemistry.

[qiman]

And there are no production vehicles with plasma ignition so drop it.

 

Every auto and spark plug manufacturer has expired and/or live patents

for plasma jet ignition systems and plasma ignitors. They are simply sitting

on it until they are forced little by little to finally bring them out. They aren't

wasting their time protecting their own circuits for this type of ignition

for entertainment.

 

My friend's uncle was a top level engineer at GM for many years. It was

absolutely no secret that it was absolute policy to build low efficiency

cars.

 

Why? It isn't a conspiracy theory, it is called business, plain and simple.

 

Many auto dealerships have a maintenance section to their lots. That

maintenance section has one goal for many of them - that goal is

to simply break even to cover the costs of running the dealership. The

only profit made is on the car sales. If you reduce engine maintenance,

you cut back not only just profit but one of the primary sources of income

that specifically breaks even to run the dealership to begin with.

 

Honda dealership managers from all over the NW come here to Spokane

to train - they learn exactly this about what pays for the dealership's

costs and where the profit comes from at these trainings.

 

The plasma jet ignition systems eliminate carbon buildup, oil lasts way

longer, catalytic converters will last practically indefinitely, etc... the

auto manufactures keep re-applying for new patents with new variations

of circuits for the same type of ignition system when their old patents

expire. The latest that I saw is a 2008 Mazda patent where it looks like

they plan to produce a car with the plasma jet ignition and a well

designed plasma igniter.

 

The military has been using plasma jet ignitions for aviation for YEARS.

Why? Because IT WORKS and they will use the BEST. It is THE choice

ignition method for turbojet engines. Normally when the flame tube is

up to temp, you can turn off the ignition. However, when leaving the

plasma running, there is an increase in efficiency. These systems are

commercially manufactured for the military and have been for a long

time. But they cost $5k per system and up while it is only several

hundred dollars to put the same thing on a car, which is just a scaled

down version of the same thing.

 

Anyone that is "skeptical" (meaning cynical and only trying to reinforce

one's own current beliefs), go research it. Check out the patent database

and you'll see all the auto companies, spark plug companies, universities,

etc... that are sitting on this technology and they continue to patent

different variations to this day. If there was no merit, they would not

waste their time. They are designing entire engines to take advantage

of the benefits, but the U.S. will be the last place to ever welcome

the high mileage cars. In Europe, there are already 65-80 MPG small VW

diesels on the road. Why aren't they here?

 

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?page=0&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP&AB=plasma+jet+ignition&ST=advanced&compact=false

 

Anyone can see the companies that are patenting one patent right after

another and they are putting countless millions into plasma jet ignition

research and engine design.

 

Sorry, I won't drop it - the plasma jet ignitions at this point are an add

on that anyone can do just like the hho boosters are. Why you want to

discourage anyone from bettering themselves with this info is highly

suspicious.

 

Finally, one production car is adding an HHO booster right off the line

Scorpion exotic car. Small quantity, but the tests still show there are

hardly any emissions because the HHO is giving the results that are

claimed for HHO.

 

Advancements are SLOW in industry. They will milk each thing they got

little by little by little - the apple g3, g4, g5, etc... Intel is probably

over 20 years ahead of where the commercial market is at right now.

Why would they ever sabotage all that income by putting out their

fastest chips when they can simply release it incrementally - if they did

anything to the contrary, the shareholders would be jumping down their

throat.

 

If you don't understand this is how the business world works, then you

have lived a sheltered life.

[qiman]

That report appears to have almost 100 pages of information about hydrogen engines and the infrastructure to support them, and three paragraphs of information about hydrogen injection for diesel engines. It does little to make the case that "HHO" adds value to gasoline engines.

 

That document is primarily a SAFETY document.

 

You're right - it doesn't make a big case about HHO. But that doesn't matter.

What does matter is that the govt IS stating that HHO boosters are valid

with a reference of a 4% increase in diesel mileage and 7% reduction in

particulates.

 

If the question is asked - "Does the govt admit HHO boosters work and

increase mileage and decrease emissions?" The answer is absolutely YES.

There is no way around it - they are stating this or they aren't - there

is no middle ground - again - it is a safety document primarily and there

are many tests that give credit to HHO boosters.

[qiman]

I am still hoping for an answer to this question...

 

Burning gasoline and oxygen is mostly about turning a few different hydrocarbons (C8H18, C9H20, C8H10, etc) into CO2 and H20. What I want to know is, what are the hydrocarbons after HHO has had a chance to "break the hydrocarbon fuel molecule into smaller chains?"

 

C8H18 gets broken down into... what?

C9H20 gets broken down into... what?

...and so on.

 

And nox, co, etc...

 

It is random - there is no exact breaking - for example, heptane will

not exactly break close to the middle so there is not going to be exactly

a 4 and 3 carbon molecule. It is a random effect - and it isn't just about

breaking a single molecule.

 

In your understanding, do you think a single heptane molecule is isolated

from all other heptane molecules?

 

If not, how do you think one molecule is bound to another?

 

Fuel picks up an electrostatic charge as well when it moves through the

fuel like - a positive charge and when it is sprayed into the combustion

chamber, a significant amount of that fuel is electrostatically attracted

to the negatively charged wall - most car buffs don't know this - most

engineers don't even know this. The HHO has both positive and

negative charges in that gas mixture of multiple molecular makeups

and some of the negative charged molecules and atoms can reduce

the amount of some of that fuel from electrostatically being attracted

to the cylinder wall.

 

There is one particular reaction that takes place from HHO that has

a powerful effect on fuel and if anyone posts it, I will be amazed. I

already gave reference to Davy, Grubb, etc... so anyone with the

wherewithal can see some of their work and it should be obvious to

those that are skilled in the art.

 

It will not be obvious to pencil jockeys - that isn't directed to you by

the way.

[qiman]

Subscribing because I am taking thermodynamics next semester.

 

Just take a bit of time (or a lot if you have it) and read some papers -

I think you will enjoy:

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-equilibrium+thermodynamics%22+site%3A.edu

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22non-equilibrium+thermodynamics%22+site%3A.gov

 

You'll see that mwiener2 is intentionally misrepresenting the facts.

He/she apparently never knew there was such a thing as non-equilibrium

thermodynamics, which violates classical thermodynamics of closed

systems. He claims it is out there with quantum physics and was

created to explain large systems. LOL

 

You can see on those searches above that there are plenty of papers

on non-equilibrium thermodynamics in SMALL systems, MICRO systems,

systems like a biological motor that has a rotor of 4 nanometers. He is

simply just making stuff up out of the blue, never heard of non-equilibrium

thermodynamics and in one post is suddenly an expert on what it is and

what it isn't.

 

Thermodynamics is a very interesting and profound field and unfortunately

99.99+% of the people that gripe about something not being able to

violate thermodynamics simply aren't even qualified to hold their own

opinion and have no idea what they are even talking about. Sad but

true and all the university and governmental references you can see are

not some crackpot theorists - these are the highest level of academia

in the world across all fields of physics, biology, sociology, etc... Feynman,

Prigogine, Kondepudi are some big recognizable names and countless

lesser known professors at universities all over the world.

 

The trend that you will see is that non-equilibrium thermodynamics is

actually the only thermodynamics that actually explains any natural

system in the universe and the conventional closed system

thermodynamics that every skeptic thinks they're an expert on actually

explains nothing in nature because there are no true closed systems.

 

Anyway, only the people that were open minded enough to not be one

of the fake "skeptics" not only will but already are having the last laugh.

You can see that non-equilibrium thermodynamics has already spread

far and wide through almost every university in the world and these

skeptics are so far behind they simply cannot fathom it.

 

I hope you enjoy some of those papers that are on those google links

and you will see that there is a crackpot here and it isn't me.

[BAC5.2]

I was contemplating a lengthy reply, but I decided against it. Someone who rejects word wrapping isn't going to have is mind changed by someone on the internet.

 

What I will breifly point out, is that the utter rejection of classical thermodynamics that you portray is completely ignorant. The physicists you cite (Prigogine and Feynman, and others) all got their footing from classical thermodynamics, Feynman even supporting that the discoverer of the Second Law was Sadi Carnot when that fact was brought under questioning. The Second Law disproves the possibility of perpertual motion.

 

What else. Oh. Coefficient of Performance. It is a real term, and while it's application is usually resigned to refridgeration I've seen it used elsewhere. It is, however, a completely trivial and pointless measure, which accounts only for induced energy input and a summation of output. Things like Nuclear Fusion fall well into the realm of COP's exceeding 1.0. Even minor things, like the excitation of Cesium can exceed a COP of 1.0. Energy input for a reaction is nothing more than the activation energy required to cause a shell change. That input can be very small, while the output can be very large. But you are simple if you think you are getting anything for "free". Energy is required to make things. To order shells, to produce hydrogen, it's not all rated by the last step.

 

The Toyota Prius is a great example. Sure, it'll get 50mpg, but it doesn't get that for free. There are dozens of steps in the supply chain, and the fabrication emissions required to produce a vehicle capable of that type of fuel economy far outweigh the results of that vehicle.

 

Gasoline is another example. It takes more energy to create a gallon of gas from crude, than that gallon of gas contains.

 

What matters is efficiency. Net energy input over net energy output, accounting for all factors environmental or otherwise. Carnot, the very same person Feynman defended, proved that a perfectly efficient engine is impossible.

 

As for small-scale "HHO" in automotive applications, it simply does not work. I've yet to see conclusive evidence that proves otherwise, and the proofs I have seen are spotty at best and laughable at worst.

 

The concept of what you are proposing exceeds 100% efficiency, and there is no way you can prove to me that you are correct. Why? Because no matter how much energy is contained in the byproduct of electrolysis, there is still friction in the generator bearings, loss across the coils within the generator, friction within the engine powering the generator, and pumping losses associated with any piston engine in production. That doesn't even include losses from drivetrain that the engine must overcome as well. Nor did I even mention the temperature increase as a result of the electrolysis process, electrolysis isn't even close to being a perfectly efficient process.

 

It requires more energy to produce "HHO" than it will generate. The gains in fuel economy are due to nothing more than leaning out the engine by introducing unmetered oxygen, and a mental change in driving habits. Nothing more.

 

/thread.

[rao]

I think that this thread is finally starting to make some sense.

 

If I already have a perpetual motion machine and add hydrogen injection it will now make surplus energy. Since it is perpetual this means that it will create an infinite amount of energy. This one machine will solve the World's energy "problem" which is good news indeed

 

Now, if I were to start using a quality synthetic oil in my perpetual motion machine, let's say Rotella for the sake of argument, it should now make even MORE energy, given the properties of synthetic oil. However, since it already will create an infinite amount of energy it can't really make any more. This is finally PROOF hat synthetic oils actually don't have any benefits.

[BAC5.2]

I run my riding lawnmower on a mix of creamy peanut butter and soapy water. The proportions are top secret, though. I get 42 hours of run-time at full power, on a single ounce of fuel. The combustion process is actually endothermic, so I have the exhaust pipe running inside of a container, which is insulated by the exhaust gas itself. I use that to keep my beer cold while I mow the lawn. It's also so efficient, that it's real quiet like, perfect for sneakin up on motherfuckers. Just like a

. And it makes the engine so powerful, I've actually started driving it to work. I get community service for mowing the lawn next to the highway. When I get home from work, I just let it run all night and power the grid so my meter rolls backwards. I get a check from the power company every month, and last week they sent me a basket of assorted sweets as a "thank you".

 

I also read that someone said that they heard that Rao tried to steal my design, but his PHD in sarcasm incorrectly led him to believe that chunky peanut butter was better because no one likes it.

[thefultonhow]

I run my riding lawnmower on a mix of creamy peanut butter and soapy water. The proportions are top secret, though. I get 42 hours of run-time at full power, on a single ounce of fuel. The combustion process is actually endothermic, so I have the exhaust pipe running inside of a container, which is insulated by the exhaust gas itself. I use that to keep my beer cold while I mow the lawn. It's also so efficient, that it's real quiet like, perfect for sneakin up on motherfuckers. Just like a

. And it makes the engine so powerful, I've actually started driving it to work. I get community service for mowing the lawn next to the highway. When I get home from work, I just let it run all night and power the grid so my meter rolls backwards. I get a check from the power company every month, and last week they sent me a basket of assorted sweets as a "thank you".

 

I also read that someone said that they heard that Rao tried to steal my design, but his PHD in sarcasm incorrectly led him to believe that chunky peanut butter was better because no one likes it.

 

Believe it or not, there is a valid point in this.

 

The valid point is that anything that claims to work by violating the second law of thermodynamics is ridiculous. Even if it doesn't sound as patently false as BAC's Perpetual Motion Lawnmower, it is as patently false. A lot of what qiman says may sound reasonable on the surface, but the smell test is, does it adhere to the second law of thermodynamics, and if it doesn't, then there's no way it can work, no matter how convincing you are able to sound on the internet.

[BAC5.2]

GTH. My mower does too work!

 

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii287/bac52/5367.jpg

[mwiener2]

 

 

 

That GAIN of 4% and a reduction of 7% in emissions is NOT from

compressed hydrogen - it is from an HHO booster. From the report:

 

"3.5 HYDROGEN INJECTION SYSTEMS Hydrogen injection systems create small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis, to supplement the diesel fuel in a standard diesel engine. See Sections 1.2.3 and 1.5. A hydrogen injection system for a diesel engine produces and uses significantly less hydrogen than a hydrogen fuel cell or hydrogen ICE, and does not require that compressed or liquid hydrogen be carried on the vehicle. The system is designed to produce hydrogen only when required, in response to driver throttle commands. When the system is shut off, no hydrogen should be present on the vehicle."

 

 

You said it yourself, it's a safety report. They mention HHO generators because they are out there on the road and the people the report was intended for need to know what they might encounter. So when a firefighter rips open someones hood with the jaws of life and there are heavy duty power cables running into a tank of liquid... they know what it is and how to deal with it. No where in that report does it state the 4% and 7% numbers came from an onboard generator. In one place in the report it says hydrogen injection is beneficial and in another place it says vehicles may have generators onboard. It doesn't put the two together, you did.

 

I never said plasma ignition is bad either... I just said it has nothing to do with HHO generators on our cars. There's also patents for hydraulic ass scratchers. Having a patent doesn't mean much other than someone can't steal your idea. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html

 

Stop wasting your time with the long posts. Most of it garbage (molecules randomly split and generate energy. sounds like nuclear fusion in our engines) and you get shot down each time. You have yet to post proofs... just garbage arguments.

[dr_sharp]

You have yet to post proofs... just garbage arguments.

A bold statement coming from the guy who hasn't posted any external sources.

 

OH WAIT...

I happen to be an expert in exactly this..

 

Everyone stand back and prepare to be educated... :lol:

[mwiener2]

check anything I posted. Prove me wrong.