energy required > energy released ?
Wikipedia says:
''The energy required to generate the oxyhydrogen always exceeds the energy released by combusting it'' ''...the extra energy is eventually lost as heat.''
How can we get over it and gain from this phenomenon?
We just use the unused amount of electricity in order to product HHO?
This is what I hear all the time from people who think inside the box...
From a motorcycle forum I'm on...
Originally Posted by williamr
It doesn't work. You're splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burning them together to re-create the water. You're trying to build a perpetual motion machine.
Rob
Yes the people inside the box aren't looking at the whole environment that we are using it in.
here is an example to not looking at the environment that something is used in.
take a bullet w/shell and smack the back of it. The bullet may fly a few hundred feet. Now put it inside a barrel and seal off the back end. It will fly thougsands of feet this way.
What we are doing is taking Un used energy from the alternator and using it to break down the water into hydrogen and oxygen. It's not completely free energy as it does put a slight load on the engine. But it takes much less energy than if we were adding an alternator to just run the HHO cell. Next with the introduction of hydrogen and oxygen in the combustion chamber we are able to burn the gasoline more efficiently. as well with the introduction of hydrogen it has a higher octane rating to it. that means it's harder for it to start to combust. because of this we are able to lean the engine of fuel without the gasoline starting to ignite early and cuasing engine knock.
That's the truth if you are making a cutting torch. You will need more electricity to create the gas than you will get in heat energy at your torch tip.
Automotive use is different. We aren't making hydrogen to power the automobile engines. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
It's true that for every 10 amps of electricity you pull you decrease your gas mileage by .4 mpg. We would all be stupid if it was our goal to use HHO instead of Desert Juice.
We are using a little bit of Hydrogen to change the burn properties of gasoline. When will that sink in?
I Just copy+past the text form wikipedia.
It up to you to suppose, that it has been wrote ''from people who think inside the box''
The point is to receive opinions and thoughts not critique
Originally Posted by daveczrn
Dave, that just isn't true. Smith's explanation is IMHO closer to reality. On Alternators, I have a 3hp lawn mower that I have converted to a 12v power source for the hunting hovel (not quite nice enough to be a shack...). If I hook the power leads up to a fully charged battery, I can easily pull start the engine. If I leave the power leads off, I can easily pull start the engine. BUT, if it hook up the leads to a battery that needs a charge - NO WAY can I pull start it. No way. That tells me that the voltage regulator is working and not energizing the field coils in the alternator. When you draw a load and energize the field, it takes POWER to spin an alternator !
From what I can glean on this whole topic,
you don't get more energy from burning the gas than it took to create it
you don't use "unused electrical energy" from the alternator for free
you don't get energy from some unknown dimension (I read that somewhere)
you DO get better combustion from the addition of the gas and that increases efficiency.
I could be nutzo, bonkers, goofy or even just plain wrong in that. {Feel free to whack on me if I am!!} But, it's what I've come up with and it seems to make sense. What I don't know is if the increase is just taking the engine up to where it should be running anyway due to poor maintenance or if it is reaching a new plateau of combustion. (That would explain why some get bigger gains than others). I had hoped to get a system running this week, but can't find nylon rod & nuts locally.
Packer Fan
(Bench Warmer Brett??}
Overall energy efficiency for making and using HHO and a vehicle sucks. We have not developed our technology to the point of even being close to 100% efficient. But that is energy efficiency.
It does not mean that we can not make an electrolyzer that makes the most gas possible with the least amount of input power.
Also, cost efficiency is not the same thing as energy efficiency. It is, economically speaking, a good thing to improve our MPG to a point where the savings out weigh the associated costs.
and if you would have read the next line you would have read this.
Dave, that just isn't true. Smith's explanation is IMHO closer to reality.
Sentences can have statments in them that may not be true. but the paragraph will clear everything up.
Maybe it's just me, maybe mom dropped me on my head one time too many? But I still don't understand what the 2nd sentence means. Sometimes it takes more than one whack up side the head of this 'ol mule ....
Packer Fan
sorry.. Ill rewrite the sentence to be more user friendly.
It's not completely free energy as it does put a slight load on the engine. But it takes much less energy than if we were adding an alternator to just run the HHO cell.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote