off topic: HHO

I don't think that the HHO kit works by simply adding more fuel to the fire, so to speak. I think that it changes the way regular gasoline burns (which we know is grossly inefficient). Which, if it's true, pretty much makes the Laws of Thermodynamics argument take a back seat.

For me, the only way to find out whether it works or not is to try it. If it does, great. If it does not, I'm out about 80 bucks and some knowledge... The beautiful thing is that there's no permanent mods done to the car.

 

my problem with this, is unless you drive an old clunker, if you put this kit in your car you void any warranty.
years ago we were all hanging a wet wick in front of the air intake, that seemed to make the engine run better, where did that idea go?

 

In the US, according to the Magnusson-Moss warranty act, a car manufacturer would have to prove that an aftermarket performance upgrade has caused damage before they can void the warranty. I'm not sure if there's anything equivalent overseas.

 

We were? I've not heard of this before.

 

either i'm showing my age, or you should get out more, :wink:

 

"We can’t bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don’t go anywhere—like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you’d say.

"Now where were we? Oh yeah—the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn’t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones..."

 

hey Homer, Google search "water vapour and internal combustion engine"
report back asap. Wiz.

 

http://www.mysanantonio.com/multimedia/ ... 1564557037

Until I get out in the garage and build one of these myself, I can't actually say "it works!" , by the same token, a guy can't say "it doesn't work" just by citing the "conservation of energy law" because that's not HOW it works.

It works like a continuously consumed catalyst, for lack of a simpler explanation. You might only consume 4 OZ of water per 100 miles.

Those who call it a Joe Cell are trying to use resonance frequencies and zero point energy to increase the gas output beyond regular electrolysis.
In regular electrolysis, one electron = one hydrogen atom.

 

using a hydrogen generator is NOT ENERGY EFFICIENT. you cannot make energy, it takes more energy to produce the elemental hydrogen and oxygen than you get back from burning the mix.

HOWEVER............

I dont care if its energy efficient. is it $$$$$ efficient? that is the question that needs to be answered, and i havent seen anyone build a generator, and post up negative results. i have a sheet of stainless, and someday soon i will be cutting it up into plates and building my generator for my truck. i also plan on making one for the bike, but thats a winter project, and after i chop/bob it.

 

I understand what is being said here about energy in= energy out.
But the motor is already turning, it's already spinning the alternator.
So the electricity used is free, so any thing that is produced is a bonus.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
:?:

 

think about a 120v ac generator (for your rv or house). its sitting there running at about 1/8 throttle barely under load. plug in a table saw or grinder (or something that requires some juice), and when you turn it on the generator will momentarily bog and then throttle up.

drawing amperage from an alternator or generator puts a load on it....an alternator pushing 20 amps will require more HP to spin than an alternator pushing 5 amps. more HP input means basically more throttle/fuel being fed into the engine.

the issue that everyone argues, and i have only seen positive real world results; is the extra fuel going in to make the H less than the fuel saved by burning the H ? as long as you are putting in less than you are saving, then its all money saving goodness.

 

I've read about this method being used on a motorcycle:

http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_lib ... h/me3.html

It's a passive water injection system that is extremely inexpensive.

 

Hey schmuco, se hillsy's post "journey to forever"

 

OK, I've been thinking about this.
As far as the energy in= energy out theory,
The system isn't producing hydrogen, it's releasing it from it's bond with the oxygen.
so, does in=out still apply?

 

energy in = energy out always applies.

Production of hydrogen (which is kind of a fallacy since it is the basic element all the others were made from in stars) requires a particle accelerator or fission reactor to split it off other elements.

 

you are correct in your thinking, but the HHO is still the end product, therefore you are "producing" it.

the energy in and energy out still applies. also dont forget that the process loses energy through the form of heat, so that plays into the energy in/out equation as well.

 

Not trying to start anything here just trying to understand.
In your example above what you say makes total sense.
But my car has an alternator, not a generator or a magneto.
Just over idle it is making all the power it's going to make no matter how fast you spin it.
As its' only purpose is to charge the battery.
Everything runs off the battery, as long as the batterys charged you don't need the alternator.
The battery has huge amps to spare.
So this is why I say it's free electricity.
Yes, I understand there will be loses to heat, friction, ect.

 

only if the demand for the amperage is there. after you use the battery to crank it over and start the engine the alt. will charge full bore until the battery reaches the charge set point, and then the alternator will go from pushing 100amps (for example) down to about 10, maybe 20 if the ac is blowing and the lights are on. so in reality, just over idle you have the POTENTIAL to be making all the power.....but it will only push as many amps that are actually needed.

now i just want to clarify, i think running brown's gas is going to pay off in the end, and i am working (very slowly) on my own generator. the energy in-out issue is not what i really care about. if it takes a million watts to get 10 watts back, as long as im saving money ill do it 8)

 

Therefore, we burn more fuel mining coal than what we get from the coal we mine :wink:

 

Sort of... We do use more energy getting it than we get out of burning the result. Energy is spent in the form of people doing work, as well as in powering machines. That is really one of the major issues with fossil fuels... they are exceedingly (energy) expensive to get.