HHO "theory" - getting more energy than putting into system - Pro argument

Ok, I have come across some people who say that this HHO stuff is just not possible and that the reason is that you can not get more energy out of the system than the energy you put it and then they say something about the law of thermo dynamics. Does anyone else run into this as well? My argument is that the energy is there but not in a useable form and the energy put in is to make the unusable energy usable. This is just like saying gasoline isn't an energy source until you add a source of ignition. If you don't have an ignition source the only energy gasoline could be useful for is it's kinetic energy from gravity.

So, my theory about this whole "thermodynamics" claims is to make the comparison to gasoline. Energy is used to break the molecule apart in electrolysis and then the gas is a true fuel and is ignited as the gasoline is.

Does this make sense to anyone else and can anyone add anything to this argument to make it better/clearer. Any suggestions or improvements?

The whole point that it takes more to create then to get out of is where people lose or win the battle!!!
The key to winning is getting the maximum HHO out from the least possible put into the extraction. That is where the debate is. Or at least should be. We have too many others that only try once or so and fail, so that's their proof it doesn't work! I've gone both ways while working with HHO, great mileage and poor. If there is one thing i have learned for sure, THERE will always be a better way of doing things as time goes on and there will always be some jerk to say it doesn't or can't work.
Hail HHO !!!

4321,

Do a search named( kilowatt vs. btu). This mainly dealt with HHO as a stand alone fuel and there was COST involved with its production. Also there was conversioins of 1 energy source to another. I am in the process of playing with that but for now lets just deal with HHO use for MPG increase not to mention the benifit of cleaner engine and cleaner air.

I talk to nay sayers all the time. Most of them are either unwilling to listen or are so set in their beliefs that it just ends up a draw. A few accually come around and agree the world is round and the earth orbits around the sun. A lot of them argue that I am breaking some law of FIZICS.

Take 2 identical cars except 1 has a hho system on it. Stock cars get 10MPG. Now run both cars side by side with 10 gal. of gas in tanks. Reg car goes 100 miles. HHO car goes 150 miles(15MPG).

So you got an exra 50 miles which would of cost you 5 gal ot gas at $3 per gal. which is $15. SOOOOO now you can tell them they are correct. You did not get something for nothing. You got $15 for the cost of 1 teaspoon of water which is about .01 cents.

Like my grandpa used to say/ be careful when argueing with a fool cause people watching my not be able to tell the difference.

dont put too much faith in the meyers/dingle/boyce camp. although they've claimed to do it, it hasn't been proven to have been done, there's a lot of talk and not much action. i hope it can be done, i really do, but the more i look at it the more i'm calling "bovine fecal matter". if i was any one of them i would have multiple working samples and getting them independently verified. its all a bit "alternative medicine" to me.

Keep in mind any energy going out the exhaust (Heat) is an area for recovery of "waste."

I don't need to create anything "extra" to find a gain if all i am doing is minimizing waste.

As for OU from a reactor.
I am a firm believer that it is real, and has come in many forms. HHO (ish), Nitrogen Hydroxide, catalytic reaction, fission, fusion, ....
Some acidental some with controll and some are better than others. The latest reactor that seems to has a OU effect appears to be the Andrea Rossi's E-Cat. I believe Meyers was legit also but was it "HHO", i don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madman

4321,

Do a search named( kilowatt vs. btu). This mainly dealt with HHO as a stand alone fuel and there was COST involved with its production. Also there was conversioins of 1 energy source to another. I am in the process of playing with that but for now lets just deal with HHO use for MPG increase not to mention the benifit of cleaner engine and cleaner air.

I talk to nay sayers all the time. Most of them are either unwilling to listen or are so set in their beliefs that it just ends up a draw. A few accually come around and agree the world is round and the earth orbits around the sun. A lot of them argue that I am breaking some law of FIZICS.

Take 2 identical cars except 1 has a hho system on it. Stock cars get 10MPG. Now run both cars side by side with 10 gal. of gas in tanks. Reg car goes 100 miles. HHO car goes 150 miles(15MPG).

So you got an exra 50 miles which would of cost you 5 gal ot gas at $3 per gal. which is $15. SOOOOO now you can tell them they are correct. You did not get something for nothing. You got $15 for the cost of 1 teaspoon of water which is about .01 cents.

Like my grandpa used to say/ be careful when argueing with a fool cause people watching my not be able to tell the difference.

---

You have to agree with this just on simple chemistry.

The rate of burn of hydrogen and the pure oxygen help in the combustion process of the gas.

The people that say "that doesn't work" are the ones that did not do any tuning after they added the HHO system. Also don't expect to double your mileage just because you put a couple of liters of HHO in the system.

Think of this as a fuel additive not a fuel replacement.

Gas engines are very inefficient THAT is where this science comes in.

Remenber an internal cumbustion engine is around 15% efficient.

Take a car at 30 MPG and double your efficiency and now you are at 60 MPG.

You are still only at 30%. The sky is the limit.:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeinri

Remenber an internal cumbustion engine is around 15% efficient.

Take a car at 30 MPG and double your efficiency and now you are at 60 MPG.

You are still only at 30%. The sky is the limit.:eek:

---

I agree with you that ICE engines are ineficient BUT alot of that has to do with the type of fuel used and the state of matter that the fuel is in when it is ignited. This is 2 totallly diff. issues so lets stick with gasoline cause it is the most common type of fuel used.

Gasoline has alot of potential power but the way it is delivered to the combustion chamber is very ineficient. Either injected or carburated the liquid is broken down into smaller droplets at ambient temps. and sent to the combustion chamber where it is mixed with air and then ignited. Most of this fuel is unburnt and exits out the tail pipe as nasty poluting emissions.

How can this be improved on? Raise the temp. of the fuel in 2 stages to 440 degree F and then "homongenize" or mix with air, compress and then inject the fuel. Unfortunately mods. have to be made to the cam shaft so it is out of reach for the average guy.

There are numerous patents and claims that mileage can be greatly improved upon by changing the way gasoline is used. Some of these have been validated and some have not.

I am just saying I think it has a lot to do with the fuel and not so much as the mechanics and general workings of the ICE.

One fact is that ICEs are getting more efficient. It is a wrong statement that only 30% for the fuel is used and the rest goes out the tailpipe. Newer engines are still inefficient but it is not going out the tail pipe in unburnt fuel. We only use between 20 to 30 percent of the energy/heat from the burnt fuel. Of the wasted 70% about 50% of the heat goes out the exhaust and the other 50% goes into the block,head and radiator and we use about 30% to push the pistons down on a good engine. The amount of unburnt fuel is very small and is between 1 to 3%. When you look at it this way you are only going to get 20% of the 3% of unburnt fuel by adding HHO and burning all the fuel. So where does the additional gains come from? I suggest we discuss this. There are gains and it is not from burning of all the fuel like the scammers are saying.

True they're not truly efficient. However if your attempting to use alternative fuels of any kind other than what that engine was designed to run on, you will have to alter some of the control systems. With carb. ran motors, adjusting timing, idle and air mixtures is necessary. With injected engines its not as easy but the same is necessary. Fuel injection is computer controlled so its more difficult but if you understand the inner works of both engine and computer, you can do the adjustments. Some need more finesse than others.
A 2.2 GM engine (2000), with a scanner hooked up, as you add the HHO, you will see that the computer will automatically change the timing to adjust for difference. This is controlled by the spark knock, via the knock sensor. It only adjusts so far however and there for to run other fuels that would need greater timing advances or retarding, the crankshaft would need alteration of the T.D.C. groove.
On a 4.6 Ford engine its much easier, there is a timing ring on the front of the crank(inside the cover), a simple key-way change on the disk and done.
All of this is done with an extreme of experience! Calculations and degree wheels, and measuring multiple times before cutting.
YOU could have the computer reprogrammed to do the same thing, either way is time consuming and costly. But you can run an engine on various fuels with descent success.
As far as waste reclamation. Heat AND spent fuel can be both used and reused in easy ways that aren't commonly used. Tube in tube (say 2in. inside of 2.5in. at 18 in length or longer), inside is exhaust, outside is intake. The heat exchange can help too raise the intake temp for fuel, with a higher burn rate and less carbon waste you can re-burn more than normal exhaust for an even cleaner emissions. AND this goes for any ignited fuel you can think of. Minor if you think of one car, but how about the millions of cars out there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've been playing with my E.G.R. valve a good bit, the car didn't come with one either, i installed it the intake and the exhaust. I have a manual control on the valve from the throttle, with a limiter. Its been ported and is not vacuum operated. I'm thinking i might move the inlet further down the exhaust to see what that accomplishes. Works well for now!