PDA

View Full Version : Working with Skeptics



volomike
07-06-2008, 09:24 AM
My stepdad is a grumpy ex USA Navy Admiral, Bob. I met up with him here during the holiday weekend and shared with him what I'm working on with HHO with my father-in-law, George. Well, Bob says this HHO doesn't make sense and that we should be losing energy at the same rate we're creating it, trying to talk about the natural laws of energy.

Well, I did a lot of thinking about this, so I'd like to share an analogy for you. Let's talk about propane for a second for your grill. Now, a machine had to fill that propane tank, and it used a lot of energy to do that. It used a lot of energy to extract the propane from some other substance, then compress it into a tank. However, if you forget about that energy loss for a moment, think about something else, instead. Think about how little energy you expend to turn the knob to release that gas, and the ignite-ability of that gas with a small spark. If you only had to think about the energy used to create a spark and to turn that knob, it's very small compared to the power that came out.

Now think of it in the context of HHO. In HHO, the creation of water already had that energy performed for us by God and natural systems around us in nature. Inside water are compressed Hydrogen and Oxygen gases. It's amazing how much Hydrogen and Oxygen one can extract from water. So, you don't have to worry about the energy loss to create water because it's already done for you. Going back to the propane can analogy, it's as if God filled that can of propane for us, but instead of a propane can, it's HHO trapped inside water. And, with electrolysis, we're able to expend very little energy to, in a sense, turn that knob on the can to release this gas, and then very little energy to create a spark to ignite that gas. This is why Stanley Meyers was able to get his HHO electrolysis down to as low as 0.5 amps, I strongly feel. It is because he realized that all we're doing is like flipping a switch, or turning a knob, expending very little energy to release the HHO out of that water and ignite it. This is why we're getting more power out of HHO than the energy used to pull it out and ignite it.

Anyway, my father-in-law and I have been talking about sharing what we've learned with HHO with others in our community, and trying to build a kind of club or monthly meeting to share results and ideas. My wife suggested after a couple months of improving our tests with HHO, and driving up our mpg abilities, that we prepare a PowerPoint presentation and collect videos so that we can share what we've learned. I also see a big uptick in new users to this forum, and the fact that the first international HHO Expo was started in Bradenton, Florida, and this is a testament to how we have a fantastic movement occurring here as people see the exciting potential of what HHO can do for our world.

dennis13030
07-06-2008, 12:09 PM
volomike,

I have been soliciting this forum to start an Association(or Club). It may be the best way to organize our efforts.

If we pool our resources to do the research, spread the news, develop the applications and enter into business ventures, we could all benefit well from it.

h-power
07-06-2008, 01:02 PM
...when do we start??????????????? I'm game:D

timetowinarace
07-06-2008, 01:18 PM
The skeptic always uses the same reason to deny that hho boosters will work. The symple physics law that says you can't get more energy out of a device than you put in. The law holds true, you cannot.

What the skeptics are missing in the case of our boosters is the fact that the altinator is turning while the engine is running whether it is used to it's full extent or not. The energy is there for the taking. We are not getting nor claiming to get more energy out of the devices than what is put into them. In my view we are simply using an untapped source and making the IC engine slightly more effecient. This does not break any physics laws.

I could care less about 'green' energy and reducing harmful emissions. Not a politicly correct attitude but an honest one. My focus is on my wallet. I could care less about effeciency except in the case that it costs me less to produce more. This is another area the skeptics seem to skip over. I'm not looking for the next revolution in energy. I'm looking for cheaper energy. Most people, despite thier cry for clean power, will hop on board the cheap power bus. Even the skeptics.

If you want to convince people this age old technology works, appeal to their money roll. At present prices I'm saving $60 for every tankfull of fuel depending on driving circumstances. Let the skeptics argue with that.

justaguy
07-06-2008, 01:33 PM
Yeah, my brother is a skeptic and really pisses me off,lol. He doesn,t use the law of energy defence, he says if it worked car companies would already be doing it or its jus BS on the internet trying to get your money or if it works why aren,t these people making millions selling them yada yada yada.

I told him I would prove to him it worked when I get everything ironed out. He said....well, if it works I want one lmao. Once I get mine going and he wants one, i,ll direct him to these forums to learn how to build one himself, hahaha

dennis13030
07-06-2008, 01:56 PM
I am still a skeptic.

I still have not seen any proof that we can get more energy out(in the form of HHO gas or BTUs) than we put into the electrolyzer(in the form of Watt/Hours or BTUs).

1 Btu = 0.29307108333 watthour

I don't know why anyone in this forum has even bother to prove or disprove this key item.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/energy.htm

dennis13030
07-06-2008, 02:25 PM
I am still a skeptic.

I still have not seen any proof that we can get more energy out(in the form of HHO gas or BTUs) than we put into the electrolyzer(in the form of Watt/Hours or BTUs).

I don't know why anyone in this forum has even bother to prove or disprove this key item.

timetowinarace
07-06-2008, 02:46 PM
I am still a skeptic.

I still have not seen any proof that we can get more energy out(in the form of HHO gas or BTUs) than we put into the electrolyzer(in the form of Watt/Hours or BTUs).

I don't know why anyone in this forum has even bother to prove or disprove this key item.

Yet you want to start "an Association(or Club)" for those interested in hho production.

h-power
07-06-2008, 04:52 PM
I'm sorta shocked at you too, Dennis! I thought you were all in for forming a cooperative and sharing the wealth.

The part the everyone who brings up the issue of energy in vs energy out misses is not that the H gas is being produced with otherwise mostly wasted energy but that it allows the engine to improve its efficiency by burning the fuel more completely thus putting to good use the energy that would otherwise be wasted out the tailpipe. After you remove the loss of energy from the extra load on the alternator to produce the H gas you now must add back the energy gain in the more complete combustion of the fuel. The net result being a gain in overall fuel economy due directly to the increase of engine efficiency.

Late model more efficient engines have less inefficiency and therefore less to gain. The less efficient the engine run cycle the greater the possible fuel efficiency gains.

computerclinic
07-06-2008, 05:19 PM
There is NEVER ANY GAIN above what you put in, if so - it would be breaking the laws of physics. However, what I put in my fuel tank lasts longer if I use the HHO, irrelevant of how much energy it takes to generate the gas to begin with. Trading energy from one form to another is always gonna cost something somewhere-thats the rules of physics, but it will cost me less at the pump if I can just get it right!

So far, from what I have learned is that the "cost" in the trade off for electric to HHO is latent heat energy as a result...

ranger2.3
07-06-2008, 05:40 PM
I could care less about 'green' energy and reducing harmful emissions. Not a politicly correct attitude but an honest one. My focus is on my wallet. I could care less about effeciency except in the case that it costs me less to produce more. This is another area the skeptics seem to skip over. I'm not looking for the next revolution in energy. I'm looking for cheaper energy. Most people, despite thier cry for clean power, will hop on board the cheap power bus. Even the skeptics.

If you want to convince people this age old technology works, appeal to their money roll. At present prices I'm saving $60 for every tankfull of fuel depending on driving circumstances. Let the skeptics argue with that.

Hey timetowinarace, I agree with you, I could care less too about green energy and harmful emissions. I just want to save money and get cheaper more resourceful energy. And to be honest I was a skeptic when I first joined this forum, but ever since I built my own HHO generator and saw the HHO bubbling I knew there had to be something to it.

dennis13030
07-06-2008, 05:46 PM
Right now I believe that HHO might be a really good thing energy-wise, ecology-wise and business-wise. I want to see the energy gain proved. It's so important to do this because without out it HHO will always be a "hard sale". If the gain in energy is proven, the world will be knocking down your door to buy it.

Stratous
07-06-2008, 06:08 PM
Currently there is no energy gain, because the efficiency of the current design is only about 45% efficient, we will always have a net loss of energy. The common gasoline engine is about 38% efficient. To say we actually are creating an energy surplus is mistaken, what we are doing is using one form of energy to enhance the efficiency of another. Ideally we would like to use 100% of the electrical energy that we put into the hho generators, but current designs limit that. Thermoelectric generators would go along way to helping defeat the heat loss issue. Check this out: www.Ferrotec.com and this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rt1BcxJRfmE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1zbiPLKFu4 . Now if i could just get my hands on some of them.

dennis13030
07-06-2008, 06:38 PM
Stratous,

I want to test this efficiency figure.

What I would like to do is get an electrolyzer that uses as little power as possible but still makes a good amount of production. Use the gas to heat water in a tungsten container. Determine the BTUs from the gas. Convert the BTUs to their electrical equivalent WattHours. Then compare the input power to the electrolyzer to the calculated value. I think the result will surprise many.

The key here the measuring the BTUs with a tungsten container. HHO gas and tungsten match extremely well for heat(therefore power).

volomike
07-06-2008, 09:53 PM
And another thing -- why do news reporters get this wrong all the time? Why do HHO experimenters let the reporters get the story wrong, or are they hucksters and like to propogate lies in order to make a buck?

Here's what either the reporters or hucksters are doing:

- Claiming the vehicle runs on HHO alone, disregarding the battery drain.

- Claiming that they "invented" the device.

- Claiming that the thing is a "fuel cell" when it doesn't produce any electricity.

I mean, here's the typical news story on this that you can easily find if you search on "HHO" on news.yahoo.com:

http://news14.com/content/local_news/charlotte/596765/turning-your-vehicle-into-a-hybrid/Default.aspx

I'm glad HHO is getting some coverage, but these lies have got to stop or it's going to continue blowing the legitimate credibility of HHO.

///

On another front, I got somewhere today with my ex Navy Admiral stepdad. Here's what he thought:

- On calling it HHO. He called bullshet on that one. Said it was H2 and O2, not HHO. I told him that this is just what the "movement" calls it, and that I know it's H2 and O2, but it's easier to just say HHO.

- On the issue of Stanley Meyer running a dune buggy on 0.5 amps and HHO alone. He called bullshet on that one. (BTW, I may have my facts wrong on that one. I thought I read somewhere that Stanley Meyer ran it on 0.5 amps from a battery, but perhaps it was a lot more.)

- On the analogy of the propane tank, where God has already compressed the gas in water and we're like turning the knob (easy energy) to release it. He called bullshet on that one and said that the electrolysis is the only way to produce the gas and it takes sufficient energy to get it out and only can propel you that much more, but then the alternator should drain on you and you lose the power loss. (The law of energy thing.)

- HOWEVER, on the issue of the facts that in my first experiment that I was getting 8mpg more per gallon and now am workbenching it to do even better, HE DID BELIEVE ME. He said, "Detroit needs a solution like this right now. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if these HHO hobbyists have stumbled on something that Detroit has missed. Perhaps something else is going on when this H2 and O2 combusts." He said we should no longer trust what the mpg meters say in our vehicles because they can be largely inaccurate. He suggested doing the comparison manually when we write down the mileage and the gas we put in, then compare to when we use HHO + petrol gas.

So, it wasn't a complete turnaround, but he'd like to see some more of my facts.

Stratous
07-06-2008, 10:17 PM
HMM, ok on the H2 and O2 thing. where do you get the O2 from. It should be just O. Water is made up of 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, so when its "broken" the bonds that hold the 3 molecules together are destroyed. Then the "free" Hydrogen and oxygen molecules are free floating. One broken water molecule will release 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule.

volomike
07-06-2008, 10:24 PM
HMM, ok on the H2 and O2 thing. where do you get the O2 from. It should be just O. Water is made up of 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, so when its "broken" the bonds that hold the 3 molecules together are destroyed. Then the "free" Hydrogen and oxygen molecules are free floating. One broken water molecule will release 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule.

I saw a forum response from a naysayer where someone said that it produced H2 and O2. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, then I back off that statement. Sounds tenable based on what you said about H20.

volomike
07-06-2008, 10:29 PM
And here's another naysayer. This is the guy from Motorweek on US Public Broadcasting, who responds in an article at the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/05/15/DI2008051502119.html

With no tests of his own, he calls it a scam and said that you'd need 4 gallons of water to produce the same amount of energy as gasoline. Way to go, Mr. Goss. (That's my cynicism coming out, by the way.)

timetowinarace
07-06-2008, 10:31 PM
Yep, HHO is not a scientific term. But if he wants to be specific, ask him if he normaly uses the word 'gas' when puting gasoline in his auto. Hydrogen and oxygen are a gas. Gasoline is a liquid. I bet he gets the point. The HHO crowd has it's own slang. Neutral plates are not actually neutral either.

Meyer did claim to use high voltage and low current. I believe it. He wasn't the first nor last to claim it. But it wan't DC current nor a DC pulse.

I do use basic math to figure my mileage. He is correct, the cars computer is only an estimate but my truck is pretty close most the time.

Stratous
07-06-2008, 10:43 PM
And here's another naysayer. This is the guy from Motorweek on US Public Broadcasting, who responds in an article at the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/05/15/DI2008051502119.html

With no tests of his own, he calls it a scam and said that you'd need 4 gallons of water to produce the same amount of energy as gasoline. Way to go, Mr. Goss. (That's my cynicism coming out, by the way.)

I read the short version. As usuall most people mistake what we are about. we know that we cant produce enough HHO to run our car engines. Thats not what were trying to do. We are using HHO to increase the burn effiency of gasoline or diesel in our engines. Yes, at current production rates it takes more energy to produce HHO that you get out of just the HHO. I know that. But combining HHO with gasoline increases the output energy of the gasoline. That has been proven time and time again. That is how this works for all you nay sayers out there.

volomike
07-06-2008, 11:42 PM
Here's a website that claims it will give people $1M if they can prove that their HHO device works. Oh, and there's a few catches, of course. Catch #1, you have to come up with $5,000 as an entry fee. Catch #2, you have to install the device in New Zealand. Catch #3, you have to give up a vehicle in New Zealand for 6 months. Catch #4, the engine will be torn down to look for any kind of damage, and, if found, you lose. Catch #5, the performance must be a sustained 25% gain.

http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_challenge.shtml

Oh, and top things off, the guy doesn't have the money, but claims, if you can do all that, then he can surely find the investors to give you the $1M.

Yeah, right. If I could do all that, I probably would be so wealthy on my own that this mere $1M would barely pay the pilot salary for my private jet that flies off the runway of my 100 acre estate.

This guy's name with the $1M deal is Bruce Simpson, and he's a scientist who's been on 60 Minutes and BBC News a few times. Here's his FAQ on HHO:

http://aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam_faq.shtml

volomike
07-06-2008, 11:46 PM
HMM, ok on the H2 and O2 thing. where do you get the O2 from. It should be just O. Water is made up of 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, so when its "broken" the bonds that hold the 3 molecules together are destroyed. Then the "free" Hydrogen and oxygen molecules are free floating. One broken water molecule will release 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule.

My stepdad, the nuclear engineer (Purdue University) and ex-Navy Admiral, says that HHO sort of sounds about right as far as a made-up term. He says that what people are trying to describe is the diatomic state of two Hydrogen molecules (H2 and H2), and one Oxygen molecule (O2). So that's where people call it by a short name of HHO because saying H2H2O2 sounds confusing to hobbyists.

volomike
07-06-2008, 11:59 PM
Bob, this stepdad of mine, also explained that he used electrolyzers on nuclear subs in order to generate the air to breathe. So I asked how they work and what the best configuration is for these things. He said that what you need are (a) more surface area, (b) a close reaction of positive to negative voltage, and (c) enough water between the positive and negative plates in order to produce more of the electrolysis effect. So he said adding neutral plates in between positive and negative has no effect in his opinion except that this would sort of make it like the electrolyte, which would be a neutral. So he said the neutral plate would actually lessen the effect because you would have less elecrolyte in that space, or blocked electrolyte, so that the positive to negative electric reaction could not occur as well as it could. He said the best reaction would simply be +S-S+S-S+S- and so on where S is the space between + and - that's large enough for the maximum + to - electrolsis reaction to occur.

ELECTR0N3RD
07-07-2008, 12:02 AM
...when do we start??????????????? I'm game:D

DIDDO, as i said before, sign me up Dennis!

dennis13030
07-07-2008, 12:10 AM
DIDDO, as i said before, sign me up Dennis!

Maybe we should poll the users here to see who is interested?

Stratous
07-07-2008, 12:23 AM
That guy is nuts, he is no doubt in leauge with the oil companies or something.

timetowinarace
07-07-2008, 12:25 AM
Bob, this stepdad of mine, also explained that he used electrolyzers on nuclear subs in order to generate the air to breathe. So I asked how they work and what the best configuration is for these things. He said that what you need are (a) more surface area, (b) a close reaction of positive to negative voltage, and (c) enough water between the positive and negative plates in order to produce more of the electrolysis effect. So he said adding neutral plates in between positive and negative has no effect in his opinion except that this would sort of make it like the electrolyte, which would be a neutral. So he said the neutral plate would actually lessen the effect because you would have less elecrolyte in that space, or blocked electrolyte, so that the positive to negative electric reaction could not occur as well as it could. He said the best reaction would simply be +S-S+S-S+S- and so on where S is the space between + and - that's large enough for the maximum + to - electrolsis reaction to occur.

+S-S+S- is what we are calling +-+-+-+- or a parellel circut. Each plate is either + or -.

For a N plate arrangement if we put the S in there it would go something like (+)S(-+)S(-+)S(-) were each (-+) is a single N plate negative on one side positive on the other and each (+) or (-) is a single plate. A series circut. Electronics 101. We also use series-parellel circuts with N plates.

It may be advantagous for us to use () to designate a single plate such as (+), (-) and (N) when we are writing our plate arrangements as many become confused at our present way.

Stratous
07-07-2008, 12:42 AM
Bob, this stepdad of mine, also explained that he used electrolyzers on nuclear subs in order to generate the air to breathe. So I asked how they work and what the best configuration is for these things. He said that what you need are (a) more surface area, (b) a close reaction of positive to negative voltage, and (c) enough water between the positive and negative plates in order to produce more of the electrolysis effect. So he said adding neutral plates in between positive and negative has no effect in his opinion except that this would sort of make it like the electrolyte, which would be a neutral. So he said the neutral plate would actually lessen the effect because you would have less elecrolyte in that space, or blocked electrolyte, so that the positive to negative electric reaction could not occur as well as it could. He said the best reaction would simply be +S-S+S-S+S- and so on where S is the space between + and - that's large enough for the maximum + to - electrolsis reaction to occur.

By increasing the distance between the charged plates, your increasing the resistance of the conductor or water in this case. The plates do basically the same thing, but they also carry a charge. You step dad is correct though that +-+-+- does produce more than the +NNN-NNN+, but it also produces more heat because the voltage is not dropped accross the cell as it is in the +NNN-NNN+.

Stratous
07-07-2008, 12:46 AM
http://aardvarkforums.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?p=24515#24515

These guys are hardcore skeptics who either are paid to be so, or are just too smart for their own good.

Stratous
07-07-2008, 12:47 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0FD1KLIZCAQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa1meqFFjjM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73bZIXRS9_Y

Watch these

timetowinarace
07-07-2008, 01:05 AM
A couple things come to mind with the submarine thing. It semms to me producing 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen would make breathing very difficult, not to mention the added boyancy hydrogen would add to a machine designed to stay under water.

I'm going to assume that the hh and o were seperated at the anode and cathode and the hh(slang) ejected into the sea. Thus only two plate per cell with considerable space between them. Why compare this type of system to a HHO Booster?

volomike
07-07-2008, 01:39 AM
Why compare this type of system to a HHO Booster?

That wasn't really my intent. I was just trying to say that Bob already knew about electrolysis from the Navy subs where they used it. He said it's the same sort of process and explained how I could get a larger boost from the electrolysis.

However, he warned that a larger boost from the electrolysis also means more heat, and so what might be better is to use multiple units with less electrolysis in order to get the output I need but less heat. He also said that dialing back the amperage is important because after a bit you end up with either too much heat, a problem on the alternator, or just wasted energy.

volomike
07-07-2008, 01:42 AM
By increasing the distance between the charged plates, your increasing the resistance of the conductor or water in this case. The plates do basically the same thing, but they also carry a charge. You step dad is correct though that +-+-+- does produce more than the +NNN-NNN+, but it also produces more heat because the voltage is not dropped accross the cell as it is in the +NNN-NNN+.

Aha! So that's what I thought. You're lowering the amperage draw with the N plates without the need of using a DC pulse wave modulator, and therefore reducing heat. And, to make such a unit powerful, you have to combine multiple units like this to make enough HHO but with less heat.

This is good -- it affirms what I was thinking.

Ronjinsan
07-07-2008, 05:44 AM
Same as the Peak oil crowd! You should check that website for some terminal sceptics. http://www.peakoil.com/ The forums are so negative I could use tham as a plate in my cell!!

timetowinarace
07-07-2008, 11:36 AM
That wasn't really my intent. I was just trying to say that Bob already knew about electrolysis from the Navy subs where they used it. He said it's the same sort of process and explained how I could get a larger boost from the electrolysis.

However, he warned that a larger boost from the electrolysis also means more heat, and so what might be better is to use multiple units with less electrolysis in order to get the output I need but less heat. He also said that dialing back the amperage is important because after a bit you end up with either too much heat, a problem on the alternator, or just wasted energy.

I agree 100% with him on that. The main problem with it for most is finding space for multiple cells.

My next project is to use a multiple cell design on my '91 nissan pickup with a 2.4L engine. Ignition timing is manually adjustable (old fashioned distributer) and the bed of the truck can hold whatever I need. I can have fuel injecters sleeved and machined to reduce gasoline injection if necissary. I'm not aiming at hho alone but to dramaticly reduce gasoline use. but unless I find a more effeciant way I'll probably continue to use high amps(20) but have a large water volume in each cell for heat.

justaguy
07-07-2008, 10:14 PM
Same as the Peak oil crowd! You should check that website for some terminal sceptics. http://www.peakoil.com/ The forums are so negative I could use tham as a plate in my cell!!

LMAO, I agree with you