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 ?????

[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 ?????

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