Is HHO negative net energy?

[mitni455]

Hi Guys,
Long time listener, first time caller. I'm passionate about green and alternative energy and have dabbled with biodiesel & solar, but never HHO (the final frontier!)

I'd like to hear your thoughts & experiences regarding the main criticism of HHO from the skeptics, namely, that the creation of HHO is "negative net energy". In other words, that it takes more energy to create HHO than you yield from it.

[whear]

Well the argument that you cannot create more energy than what you put in is fallacious.

Don't get me wrong, the laws of thermodynamics are not fallacious, just the argument of using them against HHO.

For an internal combustion engine, HHO is an additive, not a fuel. The small amount of HHO injected should not be seen as pure energy source that moves the car.

Instead, what HHO does is improve some properties of the actual fuel, gasoline/diesel and other forms of fossil fuel.

One of the most important properties that is changed by HHO is the flame speed of the gasoline. That, in its turn, has many positive consequences on the gasoline burning efficiency.

I'm not going to go into details, I'll let you research by yourself.

This has been studied by many, including NASA.

Here's a link of the study conducted by NASA in the 70s.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

[RustyLugNut]

Well the argument that you cannot create more energy than what you put in is fallacious.

Don't get me wrong, the laws of thermodynamics are not fallacious, just the argument of using them against HHO.

For an internal combustion engine, HHO is an additive, not a fuel. The small amount of HHO injected should not be seen as pure energy source that moves the car.

Instead, what HHO does is improve some properties of the actual fuel, gasoline/diesel and other forms of fossil fuel.

One of the most important properties that is changed by HHO is the flame speed of the gasoline. That, in its turn, has many positive consequences on the gasoline burning efficiency.

I'm not going to go into details, I'll let you research by yourself.

This has been studied by many, including NASA.

Here's a link of the study conducted by NASA in the 70s.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

For the most part, I agree with you, except for your first sentence.

Energy is lost in the creation of HHO gas. I think any reasonable person would agree with this. None of the engines created by man is 100% efficient.

But, what the detractors of HHO fail to realize is just as you stated. As an ADDITIVE, HHO can be beneficial in capturing some of the lost energy the internal combustion engine radiates into the environment and turns it into motive force.

One thing to note about the paper you linked to, is the volume of hydrogen gas used in the research. They are at percentages of hydrogen added to the intake stream that are far above what our electrolysis generators can put out.

[byrd9790]

Many things in life use more then they will ever return. This is just the begining in a great new scientific cuase that has unllimited potential with the new avalibility to rss and the help of the computer. We may one day make this give more than it takes but atm we r doing good reducing wasted engery and reducing emissions. I cant think of any thing that will give more energy then it takes, its just figuring out if the loss still makes it useful.

[whear]

Thanks for correcting me,


You can't have 100 % efficiency, at least for now. What I meant is that HHO should not be mistaken as a fuel energy source, but rather as an enhancer of the gasoline.

In the NASA study, they used many ratios and they stated that Hydrogen improved combustion at all ratios. However, the most efficient ratio was, indeed, a lot leaner than what we can produce with standard dry cells.

[Madsceintist]

Wow ...............................................


False !!!!!!!!!!!!

[whear]

Oh my god,

The kraken has been awaken.

[Madsceintist]

After traveling half the U.S. and then lightning destroying the computer, YES I'm back.

Sorry for the delay.

Now as to this nonsense of more in than out crap !!!!!!!!
Faraday, ummmmmmmmmmm. Sure, I've heard of him and the "laws" of thermodynamics both. And I can read just fine, and believe it or not, I comprehend pretty well. Just like any other thing that man kind has come up with, laws, rules, borders, realms or whatever you chose to call a barricade!
I'm not an idiot! Some of these things are relative but not the "FACT" that you have to put more in then you can get out. CASE IN POINT; one U.S. penny is not worth one cent, it's worth 2.4 cent(by weight) or so! That was made by man as well!

Rules, laws, and everything else changes as do "WE" as time goes by. We learn more, discover more and find that some of what "we" once believed to be fact isn't so as "we" once believed!

How many people as of now have made engines run on nothing more than HHO ??? I don't want you to believe me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Believe the others that have also done this.
It will not take you a few days or weeks and a small amount of knowledge to make this happen. It will take you working your ass off to understand the complexity of it and put it together in the correct way to even make a small motor run.

YOU CAN NOT GET SOMETHING FROM NOTHING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not and will not ever claim that you can! However unlike some that want to argue points that are not yet understood by them, they will argue till the end of time that you can not achieve 100% Faraday.
What is that really? And what are we really talking about? ****This is not a question for anyone to answer****

Everything has its price or loss. A gasoline engine is not and will never be efficient! We burn a fossil fuel that takes how much to claim and refine and deliver???? SERIOUSLY ??????
We need electric to start motors(unless you want to get out in the cold and start it like they did in the 20's and earlier), for the electronics that need power constantly, so a battery is a must. The battery is the key piece of equipment! With the battery you have the initial start for the HHO, which starts the engine, the engine running produces the power to keep the battery charged and the systems running. Initially the "fuel system" is a drain on the battery to warm up, then the functioning system will come to meet the load and surpass the load for the duration of use(only moments in actuality). As with any type of car or equipment there are wear and tear things that will give out in time. Also if man built it, IT will break! What I'm saying is these systems and anything else are not perfect but they are real and do work.

Here's your proof ..........................................
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMlciNOyo_U&feature=player_detailpage
I think they call this kind of proof ; BLACK AND WHITE. Grey was left out, so to speak!

This will help many of you that have some deep knowledge of an engine to see how this is possible........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy88V4CWgJ0&feature=player_detailpage
Thank you,

[Madsceintist]

Quote [Well the argument that you cannot create more energy than what you put in is fallacious.

Don't get me wrong, the laws of thermodynamics are not fallacious, just the argument of using them against HHO.

For an internal combustion engine, HHO is an additive, not a fuel. The small amount of HHO injected should not be seen as pure energy source that moves the car.

Instead, what HHO does is improve some properties of the actual fuel, gasoline/diesel and other forms of fossil fuel.

One of the most important properties that is changed by HHO is the flame speed of the gasoline. That, in its turn, has many positive consequences on the gasoline burning efficiency.

I'm not going to go into details, I'll let you research by yourself.

This has been studied by many, including NASA.

Here's a link of the study conducted by NASA in the 70s.


http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf] Quote


If you read all of this NASA report and pay attention to the graphs, you will notice that they rarely used Hydrogen from a "methanol reformer", but more so bottled hydrogen. Quite a big difference! And the hydrogen from the reformer had a substantial difference on the graphs. Just a note!

[whear]

Your input is very much appreciated, Madscientist !