Question on physics

[fyvespot]

Hi all,

I've been discussing HHO on another forum and will bring this question here for forums members to answer.


I know you can run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen and oxygen. That isn't the point at all. The point is the amount of energy required to generate the hydrogen and oxygen. That energy needs to be supplied by an outside power source. It can't be done by the engine of the car itself. This is fundamental physics and there is no way around it, unless you feel like re-writing some basic laws of the universe.

Any thoughts?

[FuzzyTomCat]

Hi all,

I've been discussing HHO on another forum and will bring this question here for forums members to answer.

Quote:
I know you can run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen and oxygen. That isn't the point at all. The point is the amount of energy required to generate the hydrogen and oxygen. That energy needs to be supplied by an outside power source. It can't be done by the engine of the car itself. This is fundamental physics and there is no way around it, unless you feel like re-writing some basic laws of the universe.

Any thoughts?

Somethings take more than just math or so called physics, tell me why these simple figures don't work ??? Is it math ...... or physics ..... or laws of the universe ?????

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/illusion_054.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/illusion_003.jpg

[BoyntonStu]

Somethings take more than just math or so called physics, tell me why these simple figures don't work ??? Is it math ...... or physics ..... or laws of the universe ?????

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/illusion_054.jpg

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk15/fuzzytomcat/illusion_003.jpg

Again, please stay on topic!

"I know you can run an internal combustion engine on hydrogen and oxygen. That isn't the point at all. The point is the amount of energy required to generate the hydrogen and oxygen. That energy needs to be supplied by an outside power source. It can't be done by the engine of the car itself. This is fundamental physics and there is no way around it, unless you feel like re-writing some basic laws of the universe.

Any thoughts?"

Yes. The statement is correct.

Imagine of instead of using 30 Amps at 13.8 V to generate Hydroxy for less than 1% of the gas energy, you needed 2,700 Amps.

Where will you find them?

You would need an awfully long fat extension cord connected to a power generating station.

You cannot split water with less energy in than out.

I hope that this helps.

BoyntonStu

[Smith03Jetta]

It's not smart to attempt to use Curry's Paradox to prove perceived increases in Gas Mileage or loss/gain of energy from HHO Use.

The answer to the first one is that the casual observer does not consider line thickness in determining area. If you do this same experiment with wooden blocks you would see that the surface area is indeed 64 Sq Inches in both examples. Your point of visual reference is the grid overlay. You are measuring the grid overlay and not the actual surface of the individual pieces. Small Cracks and line thickness adds up to 1 Sq inch.

The answer to the second one is that you do not change area by rearranging the pieces. It's only a percieved difference because you are using the grid lines as a visual reference. Please note the additional line I drew on the triangle. If you used a triangle overlay as a visual reference they you would see it immediately. An optical illusion makes the viewer assume that the top line on the triangle is straight on the first example. It is not straight. THAT IS WHERE THE HOLE CAME FROM...

[1973dodger]

Hi all,

I've been discussing HHO on another forum and will bring this question here for forums members to answer.



Any thoughts?

Dear Sir,

To me the question is not a question of "zero point energy" or laws of physics, as much as it is the laws of economics. If you spend less than what you make, it is called a profit. Or another way to put it is, if you save more than you spend it is a profit or savings. Should you strive for the most efficient design possible, ABSOLUTELY. It would stand to reason, there is a point the inefficiency of your cell will become counter-productive in fuel savings. Look at it this way, you are using fuel to harvest another fuel which is more potent. You are not using fuel to make fuel. It is up to us to see at what point we reach optimum efficiency for our particular application.

1973dodger

[mario brito]

I'll try to stay on topic :

According to our accepted laws of physics, one can not get more energy from a system then the energy that is given to that system. Period.

Maybe off topic :

I don't care about that, because we are not breaking or trying to break any physic's law.
As 1973dodger said very well, it doesn't matter how much energy we spend to create HHO, if that energy is cheaper. This is not about energy saving, it's about money saving. And that's a period too ! :)

Thanks

[timetowinarace]

Hi all,

I've been discussing HHO on another forum and will bring this question here for forums members to answer.



Any thoughts?

Most poeple in the world abide by the current 'Laws' of physics. They are considered undisputable Laws.

My problem with this is quite simple. Are we to assume that at the time these laws were discovered by the great minds that discovered them, all the information of the universe was known to them? Am I to assume that all the information of the universe is known by man now? I for one, am going to go out on a limb and say it is my guess that man only knows a fraction of the available information in the universe. As such, as man learns more of this information, the laws of science are bound to change, just as they have for thousands of years.

Ignorance is holding us back.

Just how arrogant can we get?

[BoyntonStu]

Most poeple in the world abide by the current 'Laws' of physics. They are considered undisputable Laws.

My problem with this is quite simple. Are we to assume that at the time these laws were discovered by the great minds that discovered them, all the information of the universe was known to them? Am I to assume that all the information of the universe is known by man now? I for one, am going to go out on a limb and say it is my guess that man only knows a fraction of the available information in the universe. As such, as man learns more of this information, the laws of science are bound to change, just as they have for thousands of years.

Ignorance is holding us back.

Just how arrogant can we get?

I agree.

Do you completely understand the current Laws of Physics and the evidential data that supports those laws?

If you do, you certainly can challenge them, one by one.

All science is willing and welcome to accept valid statistical data that will modify and/or correct any existing law.

If you do not, you are acting in the most arrogant manner to ignore the hard work of those who have gone before.

BoyntonStu

[timetowinarace]

I agree.

Do you completely understand the current Laws of Physics and the evidential data that supports those laws?


If you do not, you are acting in the most arrogant manner to ignore the hard work of those who have gone before.

BoyntonStu

I disagree.

If "those who have gone before" had not ignored those that had gone before them, we would still believe that rain and thunder comes from the Gods. An interesting theory but now we know better.

According to the current "LAWS" of physics, aerodynamics and aviation it is impossible for a bee to fly. At this time, there is no scientist that can explain why I have seen a bee fly when the LAWS say it is impossible.

All of these Laws have their place. The arrogance lies in using them to declare progress cannot be made. The arrogance lies in assuming that the current known laws are the only laws.

[smartHHO]

For me, laws are here and there. Some can not be explained and going off topic. I could care less about the laws saying we can't do this or that. If we are using a little bit of our alternator to produce a more effecient way of getting down the road for less. Then we are getting somewhere faster then those who say it can't be done. For example the way I look at it.


Gas is $4.00 a gallon.
With HHO on 4 cylinder you get say $2.00 a gallon.

10 gallons a week without = $40 a week.
10 Gallons a week with = $20
Net savings of $20.
20 x 52 weeks = $1040 a year.

Even if your alternator goes out one time a year, (worse case senario), you pay $60 for a nice one, you are still saving well over $950 a year out of your pocket.

So, as it was said above. Savings or Profit.

I do preferr the savings.

Just my 2 CP off topic.

hehe

[BoyntonStu]

For me, laws are here and there. Some can not be explained and going off topic. I could care less about the laws saying we can't do this or that. If we are using a little bit of our alternator to produce a more effecient way of getting down the road for less. Then we are getting somewhere faster then those who say it can't be done. For example the way I look at it.


Gas is $4.00 a gallon.
With HHO on 4 cylinder you get say $2.00 a gallon.

10 gallons a week without = $40 a week.
10 Gallons a week with = $20
Net savings of $20.
20 x 52 weeks = $1040 a year.

Even if your alternator goes out one time a year, (worse case senario), you pay $60 for a nice one, you are still saving well over $950 a year out of your pocket.

So, as it was said above. Savings or Profit.

I do preferr the savings.

Just my 2 CP off topic.

hehe

Evolution?

Clear evidence proves that Earth is slightly more than 7,000 years old.

Well at least a few billion years older.

Yet, many, many otherwise intelligent people cling to the Old Laws and accept a very young Earth..

Why is that?

Is it because bees can fly?

BoyntonStu

[Walt]

I have yet to see the relivance of the laws of thermodynamics in the argument for or against HHO production. HHO production is simply a refining efficency problem that likley has a solution. What if electricity was a tenth the price? At that point even the oil sheiks would fear HHO. Efficent HHO production (other than on demand production (already net efficent) can be solved by lowering the price of electricity and/or more efficently causing the seperation of the H and the O. We are working on both!

Can a modern day car run on lizards and shrubs? No. But if the lizards and shrubs ferment and cook under the earth for a few thousand years, and then someone spends millions exploring the underearth to find out where they died, then spend millions pumping it up thousands of feet and then, pipe it or barge it thousands of miles to a multi billion dollar refinery to sort out all of the parts, then pipe it to transfer sites across the country and then haul it to be stored underground at a station which then pumps it up again to be placed in the tank of a car, and then burned in an engine for 20% efficent heat to mechanical conversion, and thenit floats around in the air as a form of disorganized energy for a while and then, we can consider the environmental risk and such... Sorry for the run on sentance BUT I what I am trying to say is we consider OIL as an acceptable, viable and efficent conversion of energy...not so much. All of the above inefficencys in oil to useable energy are healed for a price...we pay it when we fill up. All of the above fits nicely into the law of conservation as well. None of the energy is created or destroyed, but simply inefficently converted from one form to another. Yes even after use, the energy still exists.

We know both oil and water have an energy content. Had we discovered HHO and how to use it first, would we then say that oil conversion is against the laws of physics? Did the energy apparent in a split atom exist before Einstien discoverd it? Man knows nothing in the grand scheme. The industrial/technological revolution will be seen as no more than the conversion from bronze to iron tomarow.

This is not a physics thing. It is an economics thing.

Walt

[JojoJaro]

accepted laws[/I] of physics, one can not get more energy from a system then the energy that is given to that system. Period.


This is a very common argument by HHO naysayers telling us why HHO injection could not possibly work. We can not extract more energy than what we put in. We of course know this as the "Conservation of Energy' principle (AKA 1st law of Thermodynamics).

There is no doubt that this principle is absolutely true. However, how people apply it is faulty. The first thing to remember is that this principle holds only for a 'Closed' system. A system that is totally isolated from outside input or output of energy. There is no such system in the known Universe. A 'closed' system is a theoritical formulation that can never be achieved unless you are referring to the Universe itself being a closed system. A running car engine is NOT a closed system. It is receiving air from the outside. This is the reason why the Conservation of Energy principle can not be used to argue against the validity of HHO injection. It simply does not apply and people who have an incomplete understanding of this principle will be those who are the most ardent naysayer of the HHO injection benefits. They are simply not seeing the entire picture.

Another thing to remember is that our current engines are hardly a picture of efficiency. The Otto Thermodynamic cycle (for gas engines) and the Diesel Thermodynamic Cycle (for diesel engines) specifies the theoritical maximum amount of work that can be derived if one can build an ideal engine that conforms 100% to these thermodynamic cycles. Our engines do not come anywhere close to these theoritical cycles. If I remember correctly, an actual diesel engine is 40% efficient while a gas engine is 33% efficient. That is if we do not further 'dumb' down the engine for emission reasons. Our current engine configurations are truly inefficient machines made worse by emissions regulations. So, there is a lot of improvement that can be achieved by adding HHO making the engine more efficient while still being able to comply with emissions regulations.

[Stratous]

The same questions over and over again. What difference does it make? If you get better MPG then its worth it, yes? We shouldnt be debating if it works, but how to make it work better. Howdy everyone, been a while since I have been able to browse much.

[FuzzyTomCat]

It's not smart to attempt to use Curry's Paradox to prove perceived increases in Gas Mileage or loss/gain of energy from HHO Use.



The whole idea behind my post on this thread is "Perception", the idea that all energy created to be consumed is the same, without looking closely ? From a wall socket to vehicle energy, cheep vs expensive power and consumed to unused. To supplement "minor" amounts of HHO ( 1 to 4 LPM ) with our existing fuel sources in a ICE engine is cost effective. But to use HHO gas totally as a fuel with any "PERFORMANCE" cannot be done cost effective ......."TODAY" ..... ie: 5.0 Liter ICE motor @ 4000 RPM uses 10,000 liters of air per minute ( rule of thumb mininimum is 30 LPM per .250 liter motor size @ 4000 RPM ) with 625 LPM of HHO gas needed @ 6 amps minimum 12 volts nominal per liter is a total of 3750 amps. It's all what anyone perceives as "running a car on water" or what is a cost effective method of "saving energy" in the end results.

[BoyntonStu]

I have yet to see the relivance of the laws of thermodynamics in the argument for or against HHO production. HHO production is simply a refining efficency problem that likley has a solution. What if electricity was a tenth the price? At that point even the oil sheiks would fear HHO. Efficent HHO production (other than on demand production (already net efficent) can be solved by lowering the price of electricity and/or more efficently causing the seperation of the H and the O. We are working on both!

Can a modern day car run on lizards and shrubs? No. But if the lizards and shrubs ferment and cook under the earth for a few thousand years, and then someone spends millions exploring the underearth to find out where they died, then spend millions pumping it up thousands of feet and then, pipe it or barge it thousands of miles to a multi billion dollar refinery to sort out all of the parts, then pipe it to transfer sites across the country and then haul it to be stored underground at a station which then pumps it up again to be placed in the tank of a car, and then burned in an engine for 20% efficent heat to mechanical conversion, and thenit floats around in the air as a form of disorganized energy for a while and then, we can consider the environmental risk and such... Sorry for the run on sentance BUT I what I am trying to say is we consider OIL as an acceptable, viable and efficent conversion of energy...not so much. All of the above inefficencys in oil to useable energy are healed for a price...we pay it when we fill up. All of the above fits nicely into the law of conservation as well. None of the energy is created or destroyed, but simply inefficently converted from one form to another. Yes even after use, the energy still exists.

We know both oil and water have an energy content. Had we discovered HHO and how to use it first, would we then say that oil conversion is against the laws of physics? Did the energy apparent in a split atom exist before Einstien discoverd it? Man knows nothing in the grand scheme. The industrial/technological revolution will be seen as no more than the conversion from bronze to iron tomarow.

This is not a physics thing. It is an economics thing.

Walt


Can a modern day car run on lizards and shrubs? No.

Yes. See GEET.

BoyntonStu

[justaguy]

Why do people always bring up physics, we,re not using our alternator to make more amps than it can produce, we,re using the alternators amps to make hho which is a different thing. I can't get more lumber from a log than is in the log, but if I can use the lumber to make extra money :p

[bigapple]

everytime anyone hears "run a car on water" theyre thinking that the car would completely run on hydrogen... for sure, theres no way that energy supplied could be less then ur output... definitely using HHO in ur engine with ur car as a gasoline-hydrogen "hybrid" is good method of saving money and using less gasoline... one, ur car makes a ton of power thru ur alternator and u mite as well harness some of that extra electricity and run it thru the generator... and also, so much energy is lost under ur hood as heat, the generator collects some of that to increase amperage and increase production... so even though the ideal machine (100% efficient) doesnt exist, we can make our vehicles more gasoline efficient with less expensive materials (distilled water and lye)

[Tekneek]

It is not so much an efficient number you can grasp. When a small amount of HHO gas runs a 2 HP engine, that is hard to show on a Dyno. I am not sure what it would take to show the horsepower increase that small...

Yet a constant 2 HP can help save a lot of gasoline when hooked up right.

Imagine a large industrial electric motor bolted to one of your wheels as you cruise at 55.

As far as getting something from nothing, I think Hydro Electric Dams should be built with hydrogen specifically in mind. Electricity could be produced one day maybe just for the electrolysis needed to produce hydrogen we use in cars.