Posted - January 31 2014 : 13:59:18
One of the real ironies in HHO bashing is, naysayers try to argue that you cannot take 300 watts (alternator load) and produce hydrogen + oxygen (enough) to get more than 300 watts of additional power from (more) complete combustion. Yet they never word it that way, because they cannot even intelligently conceptualize it that way. In other words their brains are so simple, that they must argue: any energy produced by HHO, cannot equal the energy it took to make the HHO in the first place. Now, if combustion was an inherently 100% efficient process, that'd be true, but actually it' somewhere in the 20-50% mark.
So, the argument MUST BE (but never is) that a gasoline or diesel "part" molecule (unburnt) cannot produce more energy (if combusted fully) than the energy cost of hydrogen and oxygen (HHO made) needed to complete that combustion.
Can a naysayer argue, that the watt hours needed to split 1 millilitre of water into HHO, will ALWAYS exceed the watt hours produced, in the form of the additional power output of the "more fully combusted fuel"?
They never make this argument because they've never experimented with it. Period. They've never even put their heads into the concept deep enough to realize that THIS IS THE TRUE ARGUMENT!~ They simply derive an argument based on a 100% efficient motor. How childish.
Every time you have molecules barfing out that tailpipe, be that CO or larger sub molecular hydrocarbons -- that's wasted energy. So if it costs me a watt of input energy to then add enough hydrogen to the explosion that i am no longer running at 20-50% efficiency, rather I am closer to the 60-70% efficiency, is it possible to get more thqan a watt in the form of output torque to the wheels? Many people have seen, that yes, if you can make the HHO with great efficiency (approaching Faraday) - say 88%+ - and - you don't make too much, or make too little - just the right amount -- it can be done. Even Mark Dansie after great research and time and expense, agreed, yes, some firms are doing it right in diesel motors. And he is hugely into the necessity of real data, of all people. Now of course, when a trucking fleet's accountant says that the company did even more miles, and saved $42,000 in fuel in a year, there's no argument, it's like "carry on, it's working". The Naysayers never say anything about that aspect.
That said all these naysayers are completely missing the point that guys like me, I put 10 desulphated batteries and a couple of audio caps, coupled with 400 watts of solar in the bed of my truck and thus in the summer, my cost for HHO is virtually nothing, so it's an absolute no brainer that im getting gains, any *Universal*ing imbecile moron could do the math, im getting my amps from the sun and im running clean with bonus power.
Another huge clue is the increase in NOx's. When you breakdown CO's and get energy from that, you will end with increased NOx's and it happens. It's not a good thing, but that said other emissions are lowered. And it is proof. You cant change your emissions without having changed your engine combustion chemistry. And if your changing your chemistry, you are doing much more than just banging off hydrogen gas as a singular additive. In other words, You are not expending watts to get the combustion value of the said product. You are expending watts to create a CATALYST to then capture the energy in the UNBURNT fuel and CO, which can, produce output torque such that an overall efficiency gain is realized.
Naysayers really, really, need to understand it isnt as simple as they argue. They keep using examples of conservation of energy and laws of thermodynamics, but it only proves to show their complete idiocy - because those arguments only are valid in the case of a 100% efficient motor, and that's not what we are talking about. In fact it is so completely *Universal*ing stupid of an argument, it's like arguing that the energy required to build a match, will always exceed that which will be expelled when you touch that match to a BBQ -- so why use propane, just cook your food with a pile of matches. The HHO is the match. A Catalyst for unburnt fuel. The Additional energy comes primarily from the unburnt fuel not the HHO, people!~
Last summer I did an experiment on a trip that I have done hundreds of times. I took my diesel jetta with a roof rack and attached a 190 watt solar panel. In noon day sun on a bright day I carefully filled my diesel tank to the point where i literally was spilling the fuel on to my paint job, I could physically see that not a drop more could be added. I ran HHO on the journey,a journey I had a lot of data for - baselines without HHO. The data showed that the average of 54 trips showed that I typically get 40 mpg on that trip. With HHO produced by the sun I was getting the equivalent to 68 mpg. Now obviously the sun doesn't always shine, but I'll tellya what. When it does, it *Universal*ing works awesome, and that's a usable reality. It is completely a non argument. This summer I will have a system that will take minutes to hook up. So to say that people who build HHO devices and specialize in that, are wasting their time, is like saying that hydrogen won't burn. Naysayers - wake the *Universal* up - every bit helps.#65279;
You wouldn't laugh at my igloo if you knew how cold my beer is!