You are a stand up dude. I respect that. HHO is water you know, H2O is HHO. I am for alternation fuels, it would be nice to have a power plant that produces electricity using this technology.
Having been doing some research on HHO for some time myself the claim of increasing gas mileage in vehicles is actually some what of a misnomer. it is possible to gain mpg readings by burning less gasoline and using HHO in it place to keep the power needed to run the engine. I have also noticed that lots of people do not take in to account the conservation of momentum and the mechanical advantage of the engines as well.
@Silverados1500 You have Blocked me on your own videos so that you don't have to deal with the TRUTH. You have no spine You make Cartoon video's, that entertain your self . You have been enhaling those Gasoline vapors from your Bong for TOO many YEARS. But yes , watching what somebody makes who has maybe two brain cells left, is Funny... ONCE I'd rather watch the favorites I saved on my channel
A1mint You are an canadian Atheist You have no hope,... Laws apply to you are Mainly... You have a relatively Short Life span. You will die. Then you will cease to exist. That could happen in 50 years It could happen tommorrow. Only an Idiot , would exchange/trade a grain of sand , for the entire beach. and That is why You have Zero credibility in my eyes. Like desertphile, you are a raving lunetic,...
Now , you call yourself an Agnostic,... ?Gee , why did you remove /edit what you posted on your channel. YOU said you were an Atheist. . I also looked up and read a little about you, what you like and especially who you don't. Very negative character, aren't you. Get some help, seriously. I post the truth. You , change your colors like a chameleon! Why should Anybody TRUST you.
I don't believe I have ever written on my channel page that I'm an Atheist. I might have favored a bunch of videos made by Atheists, but that doesn't mean I am one. I'm Agnostic, meaning neither you or I can prove or disprove the existence of a God.
I also like how many Atheists totally OWN religious fanatics and idiots.
And I'd worry more about yourself, because you haven't shown a shred of intelligence here.
@merlinspower - According to the US Department of Energy, per cubic foot at
60F, gasoline has 836,000 BTU of energy and hydrogen only 270 BTU. Adjust HHO for only 2/3 hydrogen and 120F and it only has 160.22 BTU per cubic foot. Therefore, gasoline has 5218 times more energy for the same volume. Put 7.48 gallons of gasoline in a cubic foot, build a 1 foot by 1 foot by 5218 foot tank and drag it behind your vehicle and you can go the same distance. Yippy.
Some of the people find answers to problems and others ... well they find problems with every answer. I prefer to hang with the folks out there who try, dream , build, fight for a better world, no matter what Obsticle is placed in their path. They are truely worthy of my respect and admiration. So the question is ...
Denying HHO has nothing to do with choosing not to hang out with inventive people searching for solutions and inventing things.
Denying HHO is simply choosing to not give any credibility to a pseudo science scam industry.
Choosing to believe HHO is just that - choosing to believe in a belief. There exists no evidence that HHO works, and all evidence there actually is, all says that there is no gain.
The only "issue" with HHO is that no hho supporter, seller, builder, tester, whatever, have demonstrated that the puny, insignificant amount of h2 sucked into the engine does anything other than load the engine down with an unneeded load. All the math, all the studies, all the bs does nothing to change that fact. Aussies, Russians, horses, or birds cannot prove beyond a doubt the onboard hho production can improve mpg and lower emissions.
@BDS : All this petty arguing over math has only done one thing. Take the focus away from the truth. The aussies used a machine that would never, ever fit or work in a car. Its too big and the car cannot produce 220v AC. So the study is useless. You havent proved that the alt or battery is capable of generating enough h2 to improve combustion and TE to improve mpg. When you can do that, THEN you wil have a valid argument.
@Silverados1500 -- If you cared enough to look at the graphs on this Australian study you'd see that at about 3 LPM of HHO the BTE starts to rise (Fig. 3) along with the percentage of fuel savings (Fig. 6). You'd also see drops in HC emissions , CO emissions, and CO2 emissions. (Figs. 8, 10, & 11) I have so shown you many times throughout these 4000+ comments that enough HHO could be made by adding another alternator, you just choose not to listen.
@BlackDogSociety - Brake Thermal Efficiency is the percentage of heat energy that is transformed into work. The Australian study got skewed numbers because they used eletricity from the WALL outlet. Had they used a 32% efficient engine to turn a multiple 50-62% efficient altenenators there would have been no gain because their energy input numbers would have been much higher, to generate the needed eletricity.
@Silverados1500 --- Part 2. You can choose to ignore facts in favor of ES2008 jaded and unbalance math all you like. The fact is HHO can be made on board and HHO can increase TE while reducing emissions. It has been done and the results have been published. Case closed....
@BlackDogSociety - Now you are just plain telling huge whooper lies. The Australian study DID NOT generate the huge amounts of eletricity needed ON BOARD YOU LIAR SCUMBAG.
It is you that is choosing to ignore actual facts. Like how NASA isn't about on demand HHO systems at all. And how the DOE is only a reference to that unrelated NASA project.
And how that Australian study (just 1 uncredible guy with all kinds of unproven wacky projects on this portfolio BY THE WAY), is very unscientific and highly flawed.
And how there actually does NOT exist any evidence that HHO works.
You're simply choosing to believe in a lie - you've been conned or else you're a con.
@es2008 The spin master himself. Can you say nothing Good about Oxy-hydrogen? Your math doesn't add up, so you confuse and complicate the issue of HHO. Being truthful is just not in your character,
@merlinspower - No, I can not say anything good about HHO. It consumes more energy to produce it than gives back and will make us use up fossil fuels faster, not slower.
That arguement is withot merit. HHO is more worthy than you. You consume more energy than you produce! Should we replace you with your( god) Gasoline,... Its been around longer than you.
Even if Liquified and allowed to ferment , it would take years for your worthlessness to have any real value. All you do is smell bad, pollute the air with hydrocarbons. You Hypocrite!
And if I would try really hard to imagine what would go through the mind of "God", I'd very quickly see your deceiving ways. There doesn't seem to a shred of decency or honesty about you.
I'd seriously would consider spending time cleaning up your act before you run out of time...
If anyone is a spin master - YOU would have to be the GRAND MASTER OVERLORD OF SPINSTERS.
There is only one source of bad math or the lack of any actual math - and that' you, your lover BDS, and Smack the Quack, and all the rest of them losers.
And careful using the word "truthful", you're so far detached from it, you might actually stop to actually function in life.
@ES2008 You are using, therefore Wasteing energy from the grid , with your PC on. Turn it off and use the soup can and the string, OK? we might hear you better
this channel is NOT about the Math. instead it is about HHO or oxy-hydrogen, and what it can and can't do. Don't waste your time with Silverado's 1500. He is misleading you. and has a hidden agenda. Spend a week on this thread and read and watch, and it will be a week wasted, reading his endless arguments.
Subscribe to my channel site , check my favorites and watch saved videos. You will have fun. Enjoy
If anyone wishes to waste time , week after week, talking about wasted energy, heat , input,TE ect,.. then this channel isn't about that . One needs to make a video about waste. Or even offer information about more efficiant ways to harness power and Get the most of of what you put in. and then get out. If your goal is to produce Heat and Lots of it, then the use of HHO is a Clean option, if you use Solar to produce the electricity to r
run the electrolyzer and you store the excess electricity in Battery banks so that you have sufficiant reserves. If your system is designed well and efficiant, then free sunlight will produce the Oxy- Hydrogen and it is worth the effort. And its really Cool stuff HHO
You @silverado's1500 are full of bird poop. You don't think a fully automatic charging circuit is in my system ? You have just been sent back to kindergarden. You just can't play nice. So go play in traffic, just becarefull that someone doesn't catch you and toss your worthless- ness under the nearest bus
@merlins : you are worthless to even reply to. you will get no more from me. you've sniffed too many of those gas fumes that you deliver. Youre just a delivery guy, kindof like the Dominos pizza guy. All you do is deliver. Go back to your little driver job.
Will it work for me i don't need scientist to tell me. I'm not a scientist I don't understand what scientist saying. All I know that is work and it work. I don't sell anything for money. Tell me that I'm an idiot who care I save gas that make me happy.
@thegreatkoua: well you should care. If you bought yours from a vendor, youve been ripped off. If you built it yourself, you threw away your money. Either way you've been scammed. You were scammed into believing hho works, which is why you belive the hho is responsible for your gain when in reality, it is nothing more than driver input. Your right foot is easier on the pedal. But you'll not admit it. Thats the case with any and all hho nuts.
it's work why are you say that doesn't work you idiot. it work for me so i don't care. if not work for you than you don't care. check out Daniel Dingel Watercar and tell me that hho doesn't work.
@Thegreatoua - Youtube user Eletrikride claimed 88.8 percent, then realized he had a problem. Air pockets in the fuel tank, every vehicle has them. He mounted a racing fuel cell in the back of his truck so he could measure precisely. Dropped to 12.5 percent. WHAT OTHER ERRORS DO HHO PEOPLE MAKE?
Can you explain why your use of idiot, fool, moron etc is less cruel than "retarded"? They all mean basically the same thing. You seem to feel fine about mocking those with lesser intellect, but you want to then get all offended when another does it. That's a bit silly IMO.
I do not think he has a lesser intellect; I think he chooses to play the fool, and refuses to answer questions. A "retard" (as you put it), is born with limited mental ability not of his or her own choice. A fool or idiot chooses to act in that manner. You play the part of a fool, you are born a "retard".
This is a question I've been asking myself for a while. I happen to be acquainted with several mentally challenged and developmentally disabled individuals. I would never make fun of them, but I mock other none too bright people and think nothing of it. Is there a magic IQ that is OK to mock that is not too high or too low? I doubt it. But I do it just the same. I think I may be wrong in that.
I worked with the mentally challenged for a number of years, and as such have empathy for them. Although I foster empathy for most life. I chastised Desertphile for his use of the word "retard" although on here it is used in a different context, and I can't imagine DP using that word to describe a challenged person. My choice of words here could have used improvement; and I will try to speak more carefully in the future. :) There are times I get a little PO'd and trash comes out.
All these skeptic peoples are going to have a hard time explaining away these 2 videos. Information about a university peer reviewed paper supporting hho boosting. You all have been fooled by bogus science. btu bullcrap! view:
Not so fast, it is very easy to rip this study to shreds. They used external power to make the HHO. Quote The power needed to make the H2O2 mixture is included as an INPUT ENERGY to the engine.
The HHO injection already added some energy to the engine. Adding the energy from the power source, to the engine, is wrong. It should be subtracted, just as a loaded alternator subtracts from the available energy. Because they added when they should have subtracted, later,
when using an alternator, not only will their gain numbers revert to zero, the numbers will swing to a negative value. In addition, they provide ABSOLUTELY NO information on how they made their calculations, regarding the electricity. I smell bullshit.
Also, they stated 24 volts, but the Epoch web site says the EP-500 runs on either 220 or 380 volts and uses 11500 watts. At optimum Faraday voltage of 1.48 V per gap. That is 149 to 257 gaps, so the HHO cell is huge.
Electricity from the wall is much more efficient. We burn fuel at 20-25 percent efficiency and spin an alternator at 85 percent efficiency. This study made no effort to provide numbers for those inefficiencies. There are no numbers to allow us to see how the calculated any of this stuff.
Their engine has a 17.5 to 1 compression ratio. Most people have 8.5 or 10.0 to 1. The high compression ratio on this industrial engine, gave it a huge advantage in efficiency.
Another advantage this test had, the 4-liter engine was only tested at 1500 RPM. 2500 RPM is more typical at 60 MPH so a similar 4-liter engine would be turning 66.66 percent faster and using 66.66 percent more fuel.
The brake thermal efficiency only increased to a maximum gain of 2.9% at 29.8 LPM, which would be more like a 50 LPM requirement at 2500 RPM.
50 LPM at 6 MMW requires 8333 watts, talk about a scorching hot small HHO device in the vehicle.
Nowhere in the data did they measure flame speed, but NASA did, with a crap load of hydrogen, 635 grams per hour.
No numbers for grams of hydrogen or HHO temperature were given, so no way to figure out how much energy per liter.
The study maximized things by adjusting timing, which is very difficult for the average person to optimize and not very practical with computer controlled timing.
@ES2008 --- You failed to read this report correctly, it says, "The total rate of fuel consumption is calculated as the sum of diesel, the diesel equivalent flow rate of hydrogen and the diesel equivalent energy needed to produce H2/O2 mixture." So this means they added the energy required is adding into the equation. Next they write, "... the maximum fuel savings were recorded as approximately 15% (15.07%, 15.16%, and
14.96% at 19 kW, 22 kW, and 25 kW, respectively)." See part 2
@A1mint - This study is about as flawed as it gets. ANY real scientist would look at the way they did things and laugh. There are so many missing data pieces.
@BDS - They show none of their calculations and frankly, the two students who did these tests are an embarrassment to their professors. It could have been so simple. If they had just just did the test the way ZeroFossillFuel did his test. 20-25% efficient engine powering 85% efficient alternator, powering 60% MAX efficiency HHO device = losses all over the place.
We simply do not know what all the losses were because they left out that information. So since the report is so laughable, it appears this study was funded by the HHO scammers.
@ES2008 --- Really, posting the same crap? It's not a flawed study you just refuse to believe it... Be honest for a change... In this video Jupy says that no matter what the evidence Desertphile would deny everything without any introspective thought. You are exactly the same... BTW it's still a 15% gain with all the losses...
@BlackDogSociety - It is a very flawed study. Jupy921 has now praised Desertphile for being smarter than Jupy at first gave him credit for, and Jupy does see the wisdom in understanding that hydrogen, powered by on board electrolysis, simply cannot work. Watch this video again.
The study is not addressing how the energy is supplied, and instead, makes you have to accept assumptions. That's not proper science. Proper science would most definitely address this fully. After all, it is about on board on demand HHO generation.
They hurt their study at the root core and went hydrogen happy without regard for alternator loads and losses.
@A1mint - EVERY thought in this message is dead on. If this study had received peer review, there is no way it would have been published. The lies and deception of the HHO scam are fully in motion.
It is in fact, as if they assumed that before it should work, and they quickly jumped to conclusions when they saw increases - WHILE producing the HHO for free. That's cheating !
They can NOT make up for that by shaving off a bit for that little bit of alternator load.
They should have addressed this. They didn't. Study is useless. Point out.
@A1mint - The two students who did this study will cause their Professor future shame for allowing such shoddy work. They did everything they could to slant the results in favor of HHO. Amazingly, Smack thinks this passes as science.
We've seen them desperately to pass anything written by anything that looks like science that even just brings up the word hydrogen, and attempt to label that as a stamp of approval for on demand HHO systems.
BDS even now still tries to pretend that that NASA research is proof.
Part 2 --- These are the calculated maximum fuel savings factoring in all the energy used by the system with quantity of HHO @ 4%. The last page states, "The experimental results showed that with the introduction of 6.1% total diesel equivalent H2/O2 mixture into diesel, the brake thermal efficiency increased by 2.6% at 19 kW, 2.9% at 22 kW, and 1.6% at 28 kW. The brake specific fuel consumption of the engine reduced by 7.3%, 8.1%, and 4.8% at 19 kW, 22 kW, and 28 kW,
@BDS - they used 29.8 LPM at 6.02% on a very efficient 17.5 to 1 compression engine at only 1500 RPM. They did everything possible to skew things in their favor instead of being objective AND THEY PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ON THEIR CALCULATIONS.
Part 3 --- This shows that you are only here to manipulate data to further your cause. You my friend are a scammer. You did this same thing with the NASA document. That document clearly says, "Also, adding hydrogen significantly increased flame speed over all equivalence ratios. Engine performance and emissions with hydrogen from the methanol reformer were about the same as those with bottled hydrogen." Quit trying to B/S everyone...
@BDS = THE POINT is that NASA did not incur a penalty because they used wasted heat. Plus they used a second fuel, methanol. Which is kind of like cheating.
I've already pointed out that this "study" is carefully crafted to avoid dealing with what it takes to have to generate those 22kW of electricity. No word that I could find, that talks about how much fuel INCREASE you need to power an alternator to produce that 22kW.
Unless address, this study is obviously flawed and meaningless.
@a1mint --- the 22KWh is the load at the generator. The text says they used about 30 LPM or 4.84% of the diesel input. Assuming ES2008's 3 LPM and 6.1 MMW is correct then they would have used 5 KWh. The key to this is the fact they got a 15% fuel savings with the load to make HHO included in the formula...
I also have to add to the sentiment that this science paper is flawed, because it does not address on making the energy, and solely concentrates on the effects on adding HHO with little regard of what it means to generate this energy.
@a1mint --- They did address the energy it took to make the HHO. It was 4.84% in one test and that gave a 15% gain. How much more information did this published review need to have?
Perhaps they could have used two alternators in series - even though they produce AC. The effectively usable wattages should add up and I don't think you'd have to convert to DC. And even if you would have to, simple diodes should have sufficed.
They really harmed their study badly, by not actually implementing an on demand system, but only talking about it and making assumptions.
Logic continues to state that on demand just can't work.
The Epoch EP-500 says DC current = 40 amps. At 24 volts that would 960 watts capable of 5.76 LPM at 6 MMW. If the achieved 6 MMW. Its more than likely more like 4 MMW because of heat. So maybe 3.84 LPM on 960 watts. We know they used it to do at least 31.7 LPM so my guess is 7925 watts at 31.7 LPM. Power consumption says 11500 watts so it can probably do about 46 LPM. Rough guess. Epoch does not spec LPM.
@ES2008 --- OK using your about 7.5 KWh to make the HHO they still posted a gain of 15% with loads @ 2.533 times (19 KWh) than required to make the HHO, even if it wasn't already accounted for. the study is valid...
@BlackDogSociety - Page 1 says 15.07% at 19 kw, yet the last page says 7.3% at 19kw. ANY NORMAL person NOT trying to prove the SCAM of HHO would say to themselves, WTF, this is supposed to be a scientific study but they cannot even keep their numbers straight. This study is TOTAL garbage.
@BlackDogSociety - The different levels of HHO were at 19 kw 22 kw and 28 kw but at 19 kw they used 4.84 percent HHO. Page 1 says 15.07% saving at 19 kw, yet the last page says 7.3% saving at 19kw - apples to apples and they cannot even keep their lies straight, yet you, Mr. Spinmeister defend their lies.
@BlackDogSociety - But we have to remember that SmartScareCrow claims to run a 3.5 HP engine at 3600 RPM with a 250-600 watt load on the engines generator with 10 LPM and this guy runs a 2 HP engine at about 275 RPM on 5.5 LPM WITH NO LOAD and it runs like crap. so it appears SSC is a liar.
@ES2008 --- I'd show you a 6.5 HP engine using 13 LPM of HHO only running smoothly at about 2500 RPM. But you'd call him a liar too so its your loss...
@ES2008 --- Nope, sorry. I'm not going to give you someone else to attack with your rhetoric. You are simply a narrow-minded fool who deserves to be left in the dark...
@BlackDogSociety - A 30 MPG diesel vehicle at 60 MPH for one hour uses 2.0 gallons. Diesel weighs 3211 grams per gallon X 2 = 6422 grams per hour or 1.7839 grams per second. The 19 kw load in the austrailian study = 25.47 HP which is right on for a 30 MPG vehicle at 60 MPH. At 19 kw, the fuel consumption without HHO was 1.39 grams per second. 1.7839 is 28.34% more than 1.39, so their 30.6 LPM requirement becomes 39.27 LPM.
@BlackDogSociety - Now, Smacks HHO device is rated at 0.5 LPM with 10 amps (138 watts) so we need 79 of his cells at $547 each or $43,213 plus we need 10,902 watts or 790 amps, so add another $1,200 for eight 100 amp altenators and you are all set. LOL
ES2008 --- Your numbers for Smack's cell seem off but that doesn't matter much, it just more of your spin. Now we can agree that HHO does not violate the laws of conservation of energy and can in fact improve MPG. Thanks for the confirmation once again...
The Australian study used an Epoch EP-500 HHO machine and electricity from the wall.
Power supplies are 90 percent efficient. An alternator, due to friction, is 86 percent efficient.
As my video points out, 100 percent Faraday efficient electrolysis = 7.0621 milliliters per minute per watt. To be fair, I will use that figure in both examples. The Australian study used 30.6 LPM in the 19 KW load test.
At 7.0621 MMW, 30.6 LPM = 4333 watts = 4.333 kilowatt-hours = 15.5988 Mega Joules per hour. At 90 percent efficiency, we need 17.332 MJ of input, per hour, into the EP-500 from the wall electricity.
On the 19 KW load test, before injection of the HHO, the brake thermal efficiency is 32.0 percent. So only 32 percent of the energy input from the diesel fuel is converted into the mechanical motion, needed to turn the alternator.
90% efficiency is 2.8125 times more efficient than 32% efficiency. So we need to input 48.74625 MJ worth of diesel per hour, to get the alternator to make 17.322 MJ per hour.
The alternator is only 86% efficient so the real figure is 56.682 MJ per hour, which is 228% more energy input that the Australian study required from the wall electricity. That fact will cancel out the 7.3% gain they claim on the last page and actually cause HHO to hurt their fuel consumption
@ES2008 --- And I thought you knew what you were talking about... That was all B/S you dumb ass. If it takes 4.333 KWh to make 30 LPM then that's the load, not 2.815 times more. You are twisting shit around to make it work like you want it to. This experiment was documented and published in a scientific journal. All the monkeying around with the data isn't going to change that fact. If you think its wrong then you must build one, test it , then submit it for review. Anything else is B/S.
BlackDogSociety - Sorry, but you are incorrect. Most of the diesel heat goes to waste in the cooling system and the exhaust. Therefore the energy input required to make the 4.333 KW is 228% more than in the Australian study. Instead of using an external source they should have used alternators on the engine. In other words, they messed up.
@ES2008 --- One power source is 90% efficient and the other is 86% efficient and the difference between them is 228%? LOL, that's just too funny... You are so desperate to have this report say what you want it to say. None of what you post is in any way correct. Everyone will read the report for themselves and see how wrong you are.... OWNED is what you are...
You have spent too much time at Smack University. The Professors at the University of EnergySupply2008 have asked me to pass on the following to educate you.
The losses in making electricity that comes from the wall outlet are at the electrical plant. The power supply in the Epoch EP-500 HHO torch machine, wastes only 10% of that electricity.
When we feed 100 MJ of diesel fuel into the 32% efficient engine the Australian study used, only 32 MJ comes out the other end. Then the alternator wastes 14% of that, so from out of the alternator we only get 27.52 MJ.
27.52 + 228% = 90.26 MJ. Class is over, now it is time to absorb the truth and realize that Smack University lost its accreditation long ago.
@ES2008 --- READ THE STUDY. you will find that a) the brake TE was COMPUTED at 32% without the HHO and 34.6% with HHO at 19 KWh load. b) Quote "The power needed to produce the H2/O2 mixture is included as an input energy to the engine." This means they offset 4.84% of the diesel input to account for the load. c) They posted a 15.07% gain in fuel savings. That included the load for the HHO. The study was designed this way to show that on-board electrolysis can increase fuel economy.
@BlackDogSociety - The last page says 7.3% NOT 15.07% and both numbers are based on faulty calculation methods because they used energy figures based on using wall eletricity that has its losses at the generating station, NOT in the 68% engine losses and 14% altenator losses. That skewed their science and made it faulty science.
@ES2008 --- The simple fact that alludes you is the load in this case MAKES ELECTRICITY. Even if the load for HHO was not already accounted for the output of the generator could make 38 KWh and the maximum load on the EP-500 is only 11.5 KWh. The unit could have easily driven the electrolyzer at full power without any trouble. Your problem is you are too vain to admit you are wrong, after all didn't you say your intellect is in the top 4% of the population?
@BlackDogSociety - The 38 KW you mention represents FULL load and would require twice as much diesel as the 19 KW load, thus twice as much HHO requirement and twice as much electricity.
The simple fact that alludes you is the load in this case does NOT make electricity that can power an electrolysis cell because the 19KW load represents 25.47 horsepower and represents a moving vehicle load. No electricity left over, you moron.
@ES2008 --- Face facts, you lose again. The more you try to spin this your way the weaker you become. Again if you think it's wrong then build one, test it, and submit it for peer review. The burden of proof in this study now belongs to you. You cannot dispute this without a testing and peer review process...
@2H1O1 - The point is that the Australian study used wall electricity and the Epoch
EP-500 HHO machine will only waste 10 percent of the eletricity as heat in the power supply. The diesel engine was 32% efficient and an altenator wastes 14 percent so it takes a lot more diesel to generate the eletricity on board the vehicle. That is the main flaw in the Austrailian study.
@ES2008 --- Here's where your logic is skewed. The alternator 'may' waste 14% but that is from the energy you give it not from the total energy available to the system. In an automobile engine the alternator accounts for less than 2% of the total. The alternator wastes 14% of the less than 2% energy its given. Your analogy of the Australian study is way off...
@BlackDogSociety - Wall electricity wastes 10 percent in the power supply of the EP-500 HHO torch machine. Since the diesel engine wastes 68 percent of its input and the altenator wastes 14 percent, only 18 percent of the diesel input makes electricity, plus your 2% number is assinine. The EP-500 uses 11500 watts and the 2% number is based on a car not using a 11500 watt HHO device, you moron.
@BDS : What do you think it explains? Some alts are only 50% efficient, you know, the cheapos. the really good ones can be up to 85% efficient. DUH!!!!
@BDS: you are wrong. The alt wastes 14-50% of the energy it produces to head. DUH!!!!! It only saps 2% from the engine under NORMAL conditions and load. The more load, the less efficient it becomes due to it producing more heat. And a 120A alt will ONLY put that out in short bursts. It may be RATED for that, but that is NOT is optimal capacity. Read up on alternators.
@BDS : you misunderstand. The total availiable energy, ie 120A in a rated 120A alt, is NOT THERE all the time, But, put more load on that alt and the eff goes down and its load on the engine goes up. You will NEVER be able to get 120A except for short periods and when you do get that full capacity, the load on the engine can double. Most alts in cars run around 60A normally.
@Silverados1500 --- and according to fueleconomy gov that normal 60A load is less than 2% of the total. A 200 amp load will be 4-5% of the total, not 14%...
@BDS : again, you misunderstand. the alt is only 50-85% eff at producing the rated amps. The more load requirements put on the alt, the less eff it gets. So an 85% eff alt at 60A can drop to 50 or below when its load requirements go up due to the heat that is produced. So the 120A at full power can only be 50% at that time. You dont get this?
@BDS : The high loads of 200A will put more load on the engine, making IT less eff. which means it will use more gas. Its the same with and without AC. AC off, engine is more eff. AC on, engine works harder to turn the AC due to drag of the AC and in return it uses more gas. AC alone can cost as much as 3-5 mpg. How much do you think a 200A load will cost? Easily as much as the AC on
@Silverados1500 --- The point is ES2008 says that the load from the alternator(s) required to make 30 LPM HHO will be 14% of the total energy available in the diesel fuel. He is wrong and you seem to agree with me....
@BDS - I did NOT say 14% total. The AUSSY study used a 11.5 KWH HHO machine. That = 41.4 MJ per hour. With a power supply loss of 10% the input to the HHO device = 37.26 MJ. The engine = 32% efficient, so we need 101.16 MJ of diesel fuel per hour to generate 37.26 MJ of electricity per hour. If the altenator is only 50% efficient, now we need 202.34 MJ of diesel fuel per hour to generate the eletricity for the HHO device. The AUSSY study used WALL eletricity, not on board generated electricity.
@ES2008 --- Yes you did say it was 14% of the total, you say 32% - 14% left 18%. You also said that alternators are 85% efficient, now that Silverados1500 corrected you, you are using the 50% value. This tells me you have no clue what you are talking about. You just make shit up as you go, any lie to further the cause, right? Top 4% of the population my ass...
@BlackDog - You are very confused. If we have 100 MJ of electricity from the wall, 90 MJ goes to the HHO cell and 10% is lost as heat in he power supply of the EP-500. 100 MJ of diesel X 32% efficiency = 32 MJ, Altenator efficiency = 86% MAX so now 32 MJ becomes 27.52 MJ. 100 MJ in, only 27.52 MJ out. Starting with WALL eletricity, at 100 MJ in = 90 MJ out. WALL electricity blows away on board generated electricity, Got a 30 mile extension cord? Put the 695 pound beast machine in your trunk.
@BDS - In my example, the 14% figure is not a load represented by a percentage of electrical load compared to engine load. I am saying that a 50% efficient altenator, needs twice as many MJ of input as it produces.
@Silverados1500 -- That's what I'm saying, they do not waste 14% of the total available energy. A 24V system pushing 4800 Watts will require 200 amps. A high powered 350 amp would be able to maintain this output while only putting a 4-5% load to the total system energy. Their report says they used 4.84% of the diesel equivalent to make the HHO which coincides with this analogy. This amount gave them a 15.07% gain in fuel savings...
@BDS - The AUSSY study did not use eletricity generated by turning a 32% efficient diesel engine and then turning a 50-62% efficient altenator. THEY USED ELETRICITY FROM THE GRID YOU MORON.
@2H101 - Yes, the Aussy study said the efficiency of the diesel engine was 32%, therefore, 68% of the Mega Joules or BTU's of the diesel fuel are going to the cooling system, the exhaust and the surrounding air, leaving only 32% to do useful work and turn the altenator. Hello, EARTH to 2H101 - Time to find the switch to your brain and turn it on.
@2H101 - I was being generous to HHO nut cases when I said the altenator wastes 14%. According to the Horst Bauer Automotive Handbook 4th Edition, efficiency of automotive alternators is limited by fan cooling loss, bearing loss, iron loss, copper loss, and the voltage drop in the diode bridges; at part load, efficiency is between 50-62% depending on the size of alternator, and varies with alternator speed.
@BDS - Your 2% figure is meaningless, the EP-500 at 11500 watts power requirement is 833 amps at 13.8 volts. My ammeter useually reads around 13 amps, so 833 amps is 64 TIMES MORE.
@ES2008 --- Lets see you went into great detail to show that they used 4338 watts to make their HHO now you say its 11,500 watts. Which is it? Why did it change? Was it because my 2% figure from fueleconomy gov goes against your argument so now you have to change things to make it work for you? Spin Spin Spin, that's what you are best at...
@BlackDogSociety - The amount of watts do not really matter because the WALL electricity comes out of the EP-500 power supply at 90% efficiency. IE ..............
100 MJ of diesel input X 32% = 32MJ, but if the altenator is only 50% efficient under the strain of high amps then 100 MJ in = 16 MJ out.
With 100 MJ in:
AUSSIE study = 90 MJ out
On board 16 MJ out
Need 5.625 times more diesel input for the electrical generation portion = AUSSY study is TOTAL BULLSHIT.
Nice D END.
Cute Dog.
y2kjorgeavila 1 year ago
You are a stand up dude. I respect that. HHO is water you know, H2O is HHO. I am for alternation fuels, it would be nice to have a power plant that produces electricity using this technology.
frosted1030 1 year ago
Having been doing some research on HHO for some time myself the claim of increasing gas mileage in vehicles is actually some what of a misnomer. it is possible to gain mpg readings by burning less gasoline and using HHO in it place to keep the power needed to run the engine. I have also noticed that lots of people do not take in to account the conservation of momentum and the mechanical advantage of the engines as well.
Bloc911 1 year ago
Comment removed
metallica71787 1 year ago
The law of conservation of energy:
A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be CREATED nor destroyed
it can only be transformed from one state to another
badbarada 1 year ago
he might be right, but who know.
thegreatkoua 1 year ago
@Silverados1500 You have Blocked me on your own videos so that you don't have to deal with the TRUTH. You have no spine You make Cartoon video's, that entertain your self . You have been enhaling those Gasoline vapors from your Bong for TOO many YEARS. But yes , watching what somebody makes who has maybe two brain cells left, is Funny... ONCE I'd rather watch the favorites I saved on my channel
.
merlinspower 2 years ago
You're so stupid.
a1mint 2 years ago
@merlinspower : Damn right I blocked you. Youre so much an idiot and fool, I have no time for you. Entertain that.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@merlinspower - Here is a video - Smack Busted in the NEWS
watch?v=e_dB1wKkL20&NR=1
Buyerchoice 2 years ago
A1mint You are an canadian Atheist You have no hope,... Laws apply to you are Mainly... You have a relatively Short Life span. You will die. Then you will cease to exist. That could happen in 50 years It could happen tommorrow. Only an Idiot , would exchange/trade a grain of sand , for the entire beach. and That is why You have Zero credibility in my eyes. Like desertphile, you are a raving lunetic,...
merlinspower 2 years ago
Do you think that because you're American (are you?) you're automatically better than a Canadian? And I'm Agnostic.
Lifespan? You should look up Wikipedia's page on life expectancy before showing yet more of your ignorance.
I think the Jury's verdict has been out a long time ago on you - they shred you up for the super moron troll you really are.
a1mint 2 years ago
Now , you call yourself an Agnostic,... ?Gee , why did you remove /edit what you posted on your channel. YOU said you were an Atheist. . I also looked up and read a little about you, what you like and especially who you don't. Very negative character, aren't you. Get some help, seriously. I post the truth. You , change your colors like a chameleon! Why should Anybody TRUST you.
Age , 43 isn't it? I was kind.. if you last to 93
merlinspower 2 years ago
I don't believe I have ever written on my channel page that I'm an Atheist. I might have favored a bunch of videos made by Atheists, but that doesn't mean I am one. I'm Agnostic, meaning neither you or I can prove or disprove the existence of a God.
I also like how many Atheists totally OWN religious fanatics and idiots.
And I'd worry more about yourself, because you haven't shown a shred of intelligence here.
a1mint 2 years ago
@merlinspower - According to the US Department of Energy, per cubic foot at
60F, gasoline has 836,000 BTU of energy and hydrogen only 270 BTU. Adjust HHO for only 2/3 hydrogen and 120F and it only has 160.22 BTU per cubic foot. Therefore, gasoline has 5218 times more energy for the same volume. Put 7.48 gallons of gasoline in a cubic foot, build a 1 foot by 1 foot by 5218 foot tank and drag it behind your vehicle and you can go the same distance. Yippy.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Some of the people find answers to problems and others ... well they find problems with every answer. I prefer to hang with the folks out there who try, dream , build, fight for a better world, no matter what Obsticle is placed in their path. They are truely worthy of my respect and admiration. So the question is ...
Which/ Who are YOU ?
merlinspower 2 years ago
Denying HHO has nothing to do with choosing not to hang out with inventive people searching for solutions and inventing things.
Denying HHO is simply choosing to not give any credibility to a pseudo science scam industry.
Choosing to believe HHO is just that - choosing to believe in a belief. There exists no evidence that HHO works, and all evidence there actually is, all says that there is no gain.
So, we all know what YOU are.
a1mint 2 years ago
@merlinspower... "I prefer to hang with the folks out there who try, dream , build, fight for a better world."
Folks like Shmuck ? A con man that Scams people out of their money, people trying to save a buck, people that can least afford to be scammed.
A person that has commented several Federal Crimes. Someone that still says "I Never Lie" even after being caught in several lies.
That is your kind of folks. Sure makes us wonder about you.
HHOinfo 2 years ago
The only "issue" with HHO is that no hho supporter, seller, builder, tester, whatever, have demonstrated that the puny, insignificant amount of h2 sucked into the engine does anything other than load the engine down with an unneeded load. All the math, all the studies, all the bs does nothing to change that fact. Aussies, Russians, horses, or birds cannot prove beyond a doubt the onboard hho production can improve mpg and lower emissions.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@BDS : All this petty arguing over math has only done one thing. Take the focus away from the truth. The aussies used a machine that would never, ever fit or work in a car. Its too big and the car cannot produce 220v AC. So the study is useless. You havent proved that the alt or battery is capable of generating enough h2 to improve combustion and TE to improve mpg. When you can do that, THEN you wil have a valid argument.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@Silverados1500 -- If you cared enough to look at the graphs on this Australian study you'd see that at about 3 LPM of HHO the BTE starts to rise (Fig. 3) along with the percentage of fuel savings (Fig. 6). You'd also see drops in HC emissions , CO emissions, and CO2 emissions. (Figs. 8, 10, & 11) I have so shown you many times throughout these 4000+ comments that enough HHO could be made by adding another alternator, you just choose not to listen.
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Brake Thermal Efficiency is the percentage of heat energy that is transformed into work. The Australian study got skewed numbers because they used eletricity from the WALL outlet. Had they used a 32% efficient engine to turn a multiple 50-62% efficient altenenators there would have been no gain because their energy input numbers would have been much higher, to generate the needed eletricity.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
That "study" from that one (1) professor in Austalia is highly flawed, because he used an external 24V energy source to produce HHO.
a1mint 2 years ago
@Silverados1500 --- Part 2. You can choose to ignore facts in favor of ES2008 jaded and unbalance math all you like. The fact is HHO can be made on board and HHO can increase TE while reducing emissions. It has been done and the results have been published. Case closed....
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Now you are just plain telling huge whooper lies. The Australian study DID NOT generate the huge amounts of eletricity needed ON BOARD YOU LIAR SCUMBAG.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
It is you that is choosing to ignore actual facts. Like how NASA isn't about on demand HHO systems at all. And how the DOE is only a reference to that unrelated NASA project.
And how that Australian study (just 1 uncredible guy with all kinds of unproven wacky projects on this portfolio BY THE WAY), is very unscientific and highly flawed.
And how there actually does NOT exist any evidence that HHO works.
You're simply choosing to believe in a lie - you've been conned or else you're a con.
a1mint 2 years ago
@es2008 The spin master himself. Can you say nothing Good about Oxy-hydrogen? Your math doesn't add up, so you confuse and complicate the issue of HHO. Being truthful is just not in your character,
merlinspower 2 years ago
@merlinspower - No, I can not say anything good about HHO. It consumes more energy to produce it than gives back and will make us use up fossil fuels faster, not slower.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
That arguement is withot merit. HHO is more worthy than you. You consume more energy than you produce! Should we replace you with your( god) Gasoline,... Its been around longer than you.
Even if Liquified and allowed to ferment , it would take years for your worthlessness to have any real value. All you do is smell bad, pollute the air with hydrocarbons. You Hypocrite!
merlinspower 2 years ago
And if I would try really hard to imagine what would go through the mind of "God", I'd very quickly see your deceiving ways. There doesn't seem to a shred of decency or honesty about you.
I'd seriously would consider spending time cleaning up your act before you run out of time...
a1mint 2 years ago
If anyone is a spin master - YOU would have to be the GRAND MASTER OVERLORD OF SPINSTERS.
There is only one source of bad math or the lack of any actual math - and that' you, your lover BDS, and Smack the Quack, and all the rest of them losers.
And careful using the word "truthful", you're so far detached from it, you might actually stop to actually function in life.
a1mint 2 years ago
@ES2008 You are using, therefore Wasteing energy from the grid , with your PC on. Turn it off and use the soup can and the string, OK? we might hear you better
merlinspower 2 years ago
@ES2008 The only waste of energy, and time , is to bother with you . I'll bet you missed me too ! ?
merlinspower 2 years ago
this channel is NOT about the Math. instead it is about HHO or oxy-hydrogen, and what it can and can't do. Don't waste your time with Silverado's 1500. He is misleading you. and has a hidden agenda. Spend a week on this thread and read and watch, and it will be a week wasted, reading his endless arguments.
Subscribe to my channel site , check my favorites and watch saved videos. You will have fun. Enjoy
merlinspower 2 years ago
Ha ha ! You tried that using my name too a while back. "Don't listen to a1mint, he's full of lies".
Ha ha - you are so pathetic, it's insane.
I seriously don't know what to feel at this point, but right now I think it's more about feeling actually sorry for you.
a1mint 2 years ago
If anyone wishes to waste time , week after week, talking about wasted energy, heat , input,TE ect,.. then this channel isn't about that . One needs to make a video about waste. Or even offer information about more efficiant ways to harness power and Get the most of of what you put in. and then get out. If your goal is to produce Heat and Lots of it, then the use of HHO is a Clean option, if you use Solar to produce the electricity to r
merlinspower 2 years ago
run the electrolyzer and you store the excess electricity in Battery banks so that you have sufficiant reserves. If your system is designed well and efficiant, then free sunlight will produce the Oxy- Hydrogen and it is worth the effort. And its really Cool stuff HHO
merlinspower 2 years ago
Comment removed
Silverados1500 2 years ago
You @silverado's1500 are full of bird poop. You don't think a fully automatic charging circuit is in my system ? You have just been sent back to kindergarden. You just can't play nice. So go play in traffic, just becarefull that someone doesn't catch you and toss your worthless- ness under the nearest bus
merlinspower 2 years ago
@merlins : you are worthless to even reply to. you will get no more from me. you've sniffed too many of those gas fumes that you deliver. Youre just a delivery guy, kindof like the Dominos pizza guy. All you do is deliver. Go back to your little driver job.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
MP would probably show up with a pizza with a couple of slices taken out, because he's running at a loss. It's all in the name of HHO 'research'.
a1mint 2 years ago
Will it work for me i don't need scientist to tell me. I'm not a scientist I don't understand what scientist saying. All I know that is work and it work. I don't sell anything for money. Tell me that I'm an idiot who care I save gas that make me happy.
thegreatkoua 2 years ago
@thegreatkoua : You are seeing gains in mpg due to driver behavior NOT hho. Sorry you cannot see that. You have been hoodwinked.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
who care it help so it work or is it who know. you didn't try so why i should believe you.
thegreatkoua 2 years ago
@thegreatkoua: well you should care. If you bought yours from a vendor, youve been ripped off. If you built it yourself, you threw away your money. Either way you've been scammed. You were scammed into believing hho works, which is why you belive the hho is responsible for your gain when in reality, it is nothing more than driver input. Your right foot is easier on the pedal. But you'll not admit it. Thats the case with any and all hho nuts.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
it's work why are you say that doesn't work you idiot. it work for me so i don't care. if not work for you than you don't care. check out Daniel Dingel Watercar and tell me that hho doesn't work.
thegreatkoua 2 years ago
@thegreatkoua : checked it out...doesnt work. Just like Stan Meyers, Just like Bob Boyce, just like EletrikRide.
Sorry youre so misinformed
Silverados1500 2 years ago
you the one that is misinformed we can talk about this all day and not going anyway
thegreatkoua 2 years ago
@thegreatkoua : the SHOW me where Im misinformed. Ive shown you. Prove it that the hho is giving you better mpg. I'll be waiting...
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@Thegreatoua - Youtube user Eletrikride claimed 88.8 percent, then realized he had a problem. Air pockets in the fuel tank, every vehicle has them. He mounted a racing fuel cell in the back of his truck so he could measure precisely. Dropped to 12.5 percent. WHAT OTHER ERRORS DO HHO PEOPLE MAKE?
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Typical scammer tactic. Pretending science and logic doesn't exist, and that simply believing it works, makes it viable.
Never mind the stamps of guarantee from people that make an honest effort to analyze it, that all you'd be doing is wasting time and money.
a1mint 2 years ago
someone left you out in the sun too long
merlinspower 2 years ago
You literally have absolutely nothing intelligent to say, do you?
a1mint 2 years ago
oooo.... the freedom of speech
thegreatkoua 2 years ago
Can you explain why your use of idiot, fool, moron etc is less cruel than "retarded"? They all mean basically the same thing. You seem to feel fine about mocking those with lesser intellect, but you want to then get all offended when another does it. That's a bit silly IMO.
leavesof3 2 years ago
I do not think he has a lesser intellect; I think he chooses to play the fool, and refuses to answer questions. A "retard" (as you put it), is born with limited mental ability not of his or her own choice. A fool or idiot chooses to act in that manner. You play the part of a fool, you are born a "retard".
jupy921 2 years ago
But to give you due credit, you are likely correct, there is not much difference. I behave badly when vexed.
jupy921 2 years ago
Most if not all of us do.
This is a question I've been asking myself for a while. I happen to be acquainted with several mentally challenged and developmentally disabled individuals. I would never make fun of them, but I mock other none too bright people and think nothing of it. Is there a magic IQ that is OK to mock that is not too high or too low? I doubt it. But I do it just the same. I think I may be wrong in that.
leavesof3 2 years ago
I worked with the mentally challenged for a number of years, and as such have empathy for them. Although I foster empathy for most life. I chastised Desertphile for his use of the word "retard" although on here it is used in a different context, and I can't imagine DP using that word to describe a challenged person. My choice of words here could have used improvement; and I will try to speak more carefully in the future. :) There are times I get a little PO'd and trash comes out.
jupy921 2 years ago
Here is some comic relief about Smack
watch?v=_xARz1K7ePA
watch?v=hkfQO3CQ5XQ
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
I just wanted to point out that hhoinfo is bogus.
delvis11 2 years ago
I just wanted to point out that that study is bogus.
a1mint 2 years ago
All these skeptic peoples are going to have a hard time explaining away these 2 videos. Information about a university peer reviewed paper supporting hho boosting. You all have been fooled by bogus science. btu bullcrap! view:
watch?v=e2wQ2XKJePg&feature=sub
watch?v=sLXg52RVaus
watch?v=PVdNsrZMAso
delvis11 2 years ago
Australia Study Part 1
Not so fast, it is very easy to rip this study to shreds. They used external power to make the HHO. Quote The power needed to make the H2O2 mixture is included as an INPUT ENERGY to the engine.
The HHO injection already added some energy to the engine. Adding the energy from the power source, to the engine, is wrong. It should be subtracted, just as a loaded alternator subtracts from the available energy. Because they added when they should have subtracted, later,
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Australia Study Part 2
when using an alternator, not only will their gain numbers revert to zero, the numbers will swing to a negative value. In addition, they provide ABSOLUTELY NO information on how they made their calculations, regarding the electricity. I smell bullshit.
Also, they stated 24 volts, but the Epoch web site says the EP-500 runs on either 220 or 380 volts and uses 11500 watts. At optimum Faraday voltage of 1.48 V per gap. That is 149 to 257 gaps, so the HHO cell is huge.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Australia Study Part 3
Electricity from the wall is much more efficient. We burn fuel at 20-25 percent efficiency and spin an alternator at 85 percent efficiency. This study made no effort to provide numbers for those inefficiencies. There are no numbers to allow us to see how the calculated any of this stuff.
Their engine has a 17.5 to 1 compression ratio. Most people have 8.5 or 10.0 to 1. The high compression ratio on this industrial engine, gave it a huge advantage in efficiency.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Australia Study Part 4
Another advantage this test had, the 4-liter engine was only tested at 1500 RPM. 2500 RPM is more typical at 60 MPH so a similar 4-liter engine would be turning 66.66 percent faster and using 66.66 percent more fuel.
The brake thermal efficiency only increased to a maximum gain of 2.9% at 29.8 LPM, which would be more like a 50 LPM requirement at 2500 RPM.
50 LPM at 6 MMW requires 8333 watts, talk about a scorching hot small HHO device in the vehicle.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Australia Study Part 5
Page 1 said fuel savings were:
15.07% at 19 KW
15.16% at 22 KW
14.96% at 28 KW
Yet the last page says:
7.3%
8.1%
4.8%
So which is it?
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Australia Study Part 6
Nowhere in the data did they measure flame speed, but NASA did, with a crap load of hydrogen, 635 grams per hour.
No numbers for grams of hydrogen or HHO temperature were given, so no way to figure out how much energy per liter.
The study maximized things by adjusting timing, which is very difficult for the average person to optimize and not very practical with computer controlled timing.
I see no evidence of any peer review.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- You failed to read this report correctly, it says, "The total rate of fuel consumption is calculated as the sum of diesel, the diesel equivalent flow rate of hydrogen and the diesel equivalent energy needed to produce H2/O2 mixture." So this means they added the energy required is adding into the equation. Next they write, "... the maximum fuel savings were recorded as approximately 15% (15.07%, 15.16%, and
14.96% at 19 kW, 22 kW, and 25 kW, respectively)." See part 2
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
"...the H2/O2 mixture was generated using 24 V external power supply."
There is no mention as to how it is calculated to make an alternator make "diesel equivalent energy needed to produce the H2/O2 mixture."
10.25% highest reduction at 22kW going into the HHO generator. It carefully avoids talking about what it means to have to generate 22kW.
Unless properly address, this study is flawed. There *ARE* flawed studies you know...
*All* the positive homeopathy studies are flawed for one.
a1mint 2 years ago
@A1mint - This study is about as flawed as it gets. ANY real scientist would look at the way they did things and laugh. There are so many missing data pieces.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BDS - They show none of their calculations and frankly, the two students who did these tests are an embarrassment to their professors. It could have been so simple. If they had just just did the test the way ZeroFossillFuel did his test. 20-25% efficient engine powering 85% efficient alternator, powering 60% MAX efficiency HHO device = losses all over the place.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- I read they used 4.84% and got a 15% gain, that's pretty damn simple... Oh and that 15% gain included all of the losses...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
Page 1 said fuel savings were:
15.07% at 19 KW
15.16% at 22 KW
14.96% at 28 KW
Yet the last page says:
7.3%
8.1%
4.8%
So which is it?
We simply do not know what all the losses were because they left out that information. So since the report is so laughable, it appears this study was funded by the HHO scammers.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Really, posting the same crap? It's not a flawed study you just refuse to believe it... Be honest for a change... In this video Jupy says that no matter what the evidence Desertphile would deny everything without any introspective thought. You are exactly the same... BTW it's still a 15% gain with all the losses...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - It is a very flawed study. Jupy921 has now praised Desertphile for being smarter than Jupy at first gave him credit for, and Jupy does see the wisdom in understanding that hydrogen, powered by on board electrolysis, simply cannot work. Watch this video again.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
The study is not addressing how the energy is supplied, and instead, makes you have to accept assumptions. That's not proper science. Proper science would most definitely address this fully. After all, it is about on board on demand HHO generation.
They hurt their study at the root core and went hydrogen happy without regard for alternator loads and losses.
a1mint 2 years ago
@A1mint - EVERY thought in this message is dead on. If this study had received peer review, there is no way it would have been published. The lies and deception of the HHO scam are fully in motion.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
It is in fact, as if they assumed that before it should work, and they quickly jumped to conclusions when they saw increases - WHILE producing the HHO for free. That's cheating !
They can NOT make up for that by shaving off a bit for that little bit of alternator load.
They should have addressed this. They didn't. Study is useless. Point out.
a1mint 2 years ago
@A1mint - The two students who did this study will cause their Professor future shame for allowing such shoddy work. They did everything they could to slant the results in favor of HHO. Amazingly, Smack thinks this passes as science.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
We've seen them desperately to pass anything written by anything that looks like science that even just brings up the word hydrogen, and attempt to label that as a stamp of approval for on demand HHO systems.
BDS even now still tries to pretend that that NASA research is proof.
He's being completely nonsensical.
a1mint 2 years ago
Part 2 --- These are the calculated maximum fuel savings factoring in all the energy used by the system with quantity of HHO @ 4%. The last page states, "The experimental results showed that with the introduction of 6.1% total diesel equivalent H2/O2 mixture into diesel, the brake thermal efficiency increased by 2.6% at 19 kW, 2.9% at 22 kW, and 1.6% at 28 kW. The brake specific fuel consumption of the engine reduced by 7.3%, 8.1%, and 4.8% at 19 kW, 22 kW, and 28 kW,
respectively." See part 3
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS - they used 29.8 LPM at 6.02% on a very efficient 17.5 to 1 compression engine at only 1500 RPM. They did everything possible to skew things in their favor instead of being objective AND THEY PROVIDED NO INFORMATION ON THEIR CALCULATIONS.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 3 --- This shows that you are only here to manipulate data to further your cause. You my friend are a scammer. You did this same thing with the NASA document. That document clearly says, "Also, adding hydrogen significantly increased flame speed over all equivalence ratios. Engine performance and emissions with hydrogen from the methanol reformer were about the same as those with bottled hydrogen." Quit trying to B/S everyone...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
NASA doc doesn't apply at all, because that's about extracting hydrogen from a second methanol fuel source generated from exhaust heat.
a1mint 2 years ago
@BDS = THE POINT is that NASA did not incur a penalty because they used wasted heat. Plus they used a second fuel, methanol. Which is kind of like cheating.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
I've already pointed out that this "study" is carefully crafted to avoid dealing with what it takes to have to generate those 22kW of electricity. No word that I could find, that talks about how much fuel INCREASE you need to power an alternator to produce that 22kW.
Unless address, this study is obviously flawed and meaningless.
a1mint 2 years ago
@a1mint --- the 22KWh is the load at the generator. The text says they used about 30 LPM or 4.84% of the diesel input. Assuming ES2008's 3 LPM and 6.1 MMW is correct then they would have used 5 KWh. The key to this is the fact they got a 15% fuel savings with the load to make HHO included in the formula...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS - They left out so many things that real science papers would go to extreme lengths to provide. This paper is extremely flawed.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
I also have to add to the sentiment that this science paper is flawed, because it does not address on making the energy, and solely concentrates on the effects on adding HHO with little regard of what it means to generate this energy.
a1mint 2 years ago
@a1mint --- They did address the energy it took to make the HHO. It was 4.84% in one test and that gave a 15% gain. How much more information did this published review need to have?
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
"In order to simplify the setup, the
H2/O2 mixture was generated using 24 V external power supply.
But in reality it will be produced from the battery/alternator"
W T F ! ! !
a1mint 2 years ago
@a1mint --- I was easier to use a commercial HHO unit rather than build one from scratch.
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
Perhaps they could have used two alternators in series - even though they produce AC. The effectively usable wattages should add up and I don't think you'd have to convert to DC. And even if you would have to, simple diodes should have sufficed.
They really harmed their study badly, by not actually implementing an on demand system, but only talking about it and making assumptions.
Logic continues to state that on demand just can't work.
a1mint 2 years ago
@A1mint - The really funny thing is that the HHO machine they used runs on 220/380 volts, not 24 volts.
oxy-hydrogen DOT c o m detail/51676/51676 DOT h t m l
Take out the spaces.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Could it be that the 220 AC is stepped down to 24V DC???? Hummm....
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
The Epoch EP-500 says DC current = 40 amps. At 24 volts that would 960 watts capable of 5.76 LPM at 6 MMW. If the achieved 6 MMW. Its more than likely more like 4 MMW because of heat. So maybe 3.84 LPM on 960 watts. We know they used it to do at least 31.7 LPM so my guess is 7925 watts at 31.7 LPM. Power consumption says 11500 watts so it can probably do about 46 LPM. Rough guess. Epoch does not spec LPM.
It looks to me like 24 V could be correct.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- OK using your about 7.5 KWh to make the HHO they still posted a gain of 15% with loads @ 2.533 times (19 KWh) than required to make the HHO, even if it wasn't already accounted for. the study is valid...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
Those numbers are ridiculous. Why has noone in the real world in the entire world ever been able to prove any gains at all.
This "study" is a farce.
a1mint 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Page 1 says 15.07% at 19 kw, yet the last page says 7.3% at 19kw. ANY NORMAL person NOT trying to prove the SCAM of HHO would say to themselves, WTF, this is supposed to be a scientific study but they cannot even keep their numbers straight. This study is TOTAL garbage.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- You do know that they tested different levels of HHO don't you? Are you intentionally trying to spin the data or are you just stupid...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - The different levels of HHO were at 19 kw 22 kw and 28 kw but at 19 kw they used 4.84 percent HHO. Page 1 says 15.07% saving at 19 kw, yet the last page says 7.3% saving at 19kw - apples to apples and they cannot even keep their lies straight, yet you, Mr. Spinmeister defend their lies.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ES2008 -- I guess it's that you are just stupid then... READ THE REPORT
You wrote, "Garbage in, garbage out." Ironically that is what SSC says about your video...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - But we have to remember that SmartScareCrow claims to run a 3.5 HP engine at 3600 RPM with a 250-600 watt load on the engines generator with 10 LPM and this guy runs a 2 HP engine at about 275 RPM on 5.5 LPM WITH NO LOAD and it runs like crap. so it appears SSC is a liar.
watch?v=PFrkHFmjx0c
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- I'd show you a 6.5 HP engine using 13 LPM of HHO only running smoothly at about 2500 RPM. But you'd call him a liar too so its your loss...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - ok, lets see the link.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Nope, sorry. I'm not going to give you someone else to attack with your rhetoric. You are simply a narrow-minded fool who deserves to be left in the dark...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - A 30 MPG diesel vehicle at 60 MPH for one hour uses 2.0 gallons. Diesel weighs 3211 grams per gallon X 2 = 6422 grams per hour or 1.7839 grams per second. The 19 kw load in the austrailian study = 25.47 HP which is right on for a 30 MPG vehicle at 60 MPH. At 19 kw, the fuel consumption without HHO was 1.39 grams per second. 1.7839 is 28.34% more than 1.39, so their 30.6 LPM requirement becomes 39.27 LPM.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Now, Smacks HHO device is rated at 0.5 LPM with 10 amps (138 watts) so we need 79 of his cells at $547 each or $43,213 plus we need 10,902 watts or 790 amps, so add another $1,200 for eight 100 amp altenators and you are all set. LOL
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
ES2008 --- Your numbers for Smack's cell seem off but that doesn't matter much, it just more of your spin. Now we can agree that HHO does not violate the laws of conservation of energy and can in fact improve MPG. Thanks for the confirmation once again...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - The numbers come directly from Smack's web site.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Then we might be able to save 15.07% or 7.3%, depending on whether we believe page one or the last page. LOL
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - A comparison - Part A
The Australian study used an Epoch EP-500 HHO machine and electricity from the wall.
Power supplies are 90 percent efficient. An alternator, due to friction, is 86 percent efficient.
As my video points out, 100 percent Faraday efficient electrolysis = 7.0621 milliliters per minute per watt. To be fair, I will use that figure in both examples. The Australian study used 30.6 LPM in the 19 KW load test.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - A comparison - Part B
At 7.0621 MMW, 30.6 LPM = 4333 watts = 4.333 kilowatt-hours = 15.5988 Mega Joules per hour. At 90 percent efficiency, we need 17.332 MJ of input, per hour, into the EP-500 from the wall electricity.
On the 19 KW load test, before injection of the HHO, the brake thermal efficiency is 32.0 percent. So only 32 percent of the energy input from the diesel fuel is converted into the mechanical motion, needed to turn the alternator.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
A comparison - Part C
90% efficiency is 2.8125 times more efficient than 32% efficiency. So we need to input 48.74625 MJ worth of diesel per hour, to get the alternator to make 17.322 MJ per hour.
The alternator is only 86% efficient so the real figure is 56.682 MJ per hour, which is 228% more energy input that the Australian study required from the wall electricity. That fact will cancel out the 7.3% gain they claim on the last page and actually cause HHO to hurt their fuel consumption
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- And I thought you knew what you were talking about... That was all B/S you dumb ass. If it takes 4.333 KWh to make 30 LPM then that's the load, not 2.815 times more. You are twisting shit around to make it work like you want it to. This experiment was documented and published in a scientific journal. All the monkeying around with the data isn't going to change that fact. If you think its wrong then you must build one, test it , then submit it for review. Anything else is B/S.
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
BlackDogSociety - Sorry, but you are incorrect. Most of the diesel heat goes to waste in the cooling system and the exhaust. Therefore the energy input required to make the 4.333 KW is 228% more than in the Australian study. Instead of using an external source they should have used alternators on the engine. In other words, they messed up.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- One power source is 90% efficient and the other is 86% efficient and the difference between them is 228%? LOL, that's just too funny... You are so desperate to have this report say what you want it to say. None of what you post is in any way correct. Everyone will read the report for themselves and see how wrong you are.... OWNED is what you are...
BTW, quit cross posting this crap.
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety Part 101A
You have spent too much time at Smack University. The Professors at the University of EnergySupply2008 have asked me to pass on the following to educate you.
The losses in making electricity that comes from the wall outlet are at the electrical plant. The power supply in the Epoch EP-500 HHO torch machine, wastes only 10% of that electricity.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety Part 101B
When we feed 100 MJ of diesel fuel into the 32% efficient engine the Australian study used, only 32 MJ comes out the other end. Then the alternator wastes 14% of that, so from out of the alternator we only get 27.52 MJ.
27.52 + 228% = 90.26 MJ. Class is over, now it is time to absorb the truth and realize that Smack University lost its accreditation long ago.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ES2008 --- READ THE STUDY. you will find that a) the brake TE was COMPUTED at 32% without the HHO and 34.6% with HHO at 19 KWh load. b) Quote "The power needed to produce the H2/O2 mixture is included as an input energy to the engine." This means they offset 4.84% of the diesel input to account for the load. c) They posted a 15.07% gain in fuel savings. That included the load for the HHO. The study was designed this way to show that on-board electrolysis can increase fuel economy.
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - The last page says 7.3% NOT 15.07% and both numbers are based on faulty calculation methods because they used energy figures based on using wall eletricity that has its losses at the generating station, NOT in the 68% engine losses and 14% altenator losses. That skewed their science and made it faulty science.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ES2008 --- The simple fact that alludes you is the load in this case MAKES ELECTRICITY. Even if the load for HHO was not already accounted for the output of the generator could make 38 KWh and the maximum load on the EP-500 is only 11.5 KWh. The unit could have easily driven the electrolyzer at full power without any trouble. Your problem is you are too vain to admit you are wrong, after all didn't you say your intellect is in the top 4% of the population?
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - The 38 KW you mention represents FULL load and would require twice as much diesel as the 19 KW load, thus twice as much HHO requirement and twice as much electricity.
The simple fact that alludes you is the load in this case does NOT make electricity that can power an electrolysis cell because the 19KW load represents 25.47 horsepower and represents a moving vehicle load. No electricity left over, you moron.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - The EP-500 specs are irrelevant here, unless you have a very long extension cord that can travel the roads with you.
Your problem is you are too stupid to admit you are wrong and show lots of evidence that your IQ is in the BOTTOM 4% of the population.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ES2008 --- Face facts, you lose again. The more you try to spin this your way the weaker you become. Again if you think it's wrong then build one, test it, and submit it for peer review. The burden of proof in this study now belongs to you. You cannot dispute this without a testing and peer review process...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Do you know why your comments keep geting marked as spam?
2H1O1 2 years ago
@2H1O1 --- It happens a lot to your post too. someone may be tagging them as spam...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Yes I see that and I dont know how to stop it , There is a lot of good comments that are allmost lost.
2H1O1 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - The Australian study has had no peer review, despite what thay liar named Smack says.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@EnergySupply2008 - Are you saying that diesel fuel is just 32% efficient ?
2H1O1 2 years ago
@2H1O1 - The diesel engine in the Austrailian study was supposedly 32% efficient.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@EnergySupply2008 - Isnt a diesel engine more efficient than gas? Yes.
But will you spin it? Yes you cant help it that just what you do.
2H1O1 2 years ago
@2H1O1 - The point is that the Australian study used wall electricity and the Epoch
EP-500 HHO machine will only waste 10 percent of the eletricity as heat in the power supply. The diesel engine was 32% efficient and an altenator wastes 14 percent so it takes a lot more diesel to generate the eletricity on board the vehicle. That is the main flaw in the Austrailian study.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Here's where your logic is skewed. The alternator 'may' waste 14% but that is from the energy you give it not from the total energy available to the system. In an automobile engine the alternator accounts for less than 2% of the total. The alternator wastes 14% of the less than 2% energy its given. Your analogy of the Australian study is way off...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - Wall electricity wastes 10 percent in the power supply of the EP-500 HHO torch machine. Since the diesel engine wastes 68 percent of its input and the altenator wastes 14 percent, only 18 percent of the diesel input makes electricity, plus your 2% number is assinine. The EP-500 uses 11500 watts and the 2% number is based on a car not using a 11500 watt HHO device, you moron.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Where do you get that alternators waste 14%?
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS : Alternators are only 50-85% efficient. So there is your "14-50%". DUH!!!!
Silverados1500 2 years ago
Comment removed
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS : What do you think it explains? Some alts are only 50% efficient, you know, the cheapos. the really good ones can be up to 85% efficient. DUH!!!!
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@BDS: you are wrong. The alt wastes 14-50% of the energy it produces to head. DUH!!!!! It only saps 2% from the engine under NORMAL conditions and load. The more load, the less efficient it becomes due to it producing more heat. And a 120A alt will ONLY put that out in short bursts. It may be RATED for that, but that is NOT is optimal capacity. Read up on alternators.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
Comment removed
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS : you misunderstand. The total availiable energy, ie 120A in a rated 120A alt, is NOT THERE all the time, But, put more load on that alt and the eff goes down and its load on the engine goes up. You will NEVER be able to get 120A except for short periods and when you do get that full capacity, the load on the engine can double. Most alts in cars run around 60A normally.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@Silverados1500 --- and according to fueleconomy gov that normal 60A load is less than 2% of the total. A 200 amp load will be 4-5% of the total, not 14%...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS : again, you misunderstand. the alt is only 50-85% eff at producing the rated amps. The more load requirements put on the alt, the less eff it gets. So an 85% eff alt at 60A can drop to 50 or below when its load requirements go up due to the heat that is produced. So the 120A at full power can only be 50% at that time. You dont get this?
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@BDS : The high loads of 200A will put more load on the engine, making IT less eff. which means it will use more gas. Its the same with and without AC. AC off, engine is more eff. AC on, engine works harder to turn the AC due to drag of the AC and in return it uses more gas. AC alone can cost as much as 3-5 mpg. How much do you think a 200A load will cost? Easily as much as the AC on
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@Silverados1500 --- The point is ES2008 says that the load from the alternator(s) required to make 30 LPM HHO will be 14% of the total energy available in the diesel fuel. He is wrong and you seem to agree with me....
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS : I havent looked at that math yet. So I'll reserve any comment on that till I do
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@BDS - I did NOT say 14% total. The AUSSY study used a 11.5 KWH HHO machine. That = 41.4 MJ per hour. With a power supply loss of 10% the input to the HHO device = 37.26 MJ. The engine = 32% efficient, so we need 101.16 MJ of diesel fuel per hour to generate 37.26 MJ of electricity per hour. If the altenator is only 50% efficient, now we need 202.34 MJ of diesel fuel per hour to generate the eletricity for the HHO device. The AUSSY study used WALL eletricity, not on board generated electricity.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Yes you did say it was 14% of the total, you say 32% - 14% left 18%. You also said that alternators are 85% efficient, now that Silverados1500 corrected you, you are using the 50% value. This tells me you have no clue what you are talking about. You just make shit up as you go, any lie to further the cause, right? Top 4% of the population my ass...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDog - You are very confused. If we have 100 MJ of electricity from the wall, 90 MJ goes to the HHO cell and 10% is lost as heat in he power supply of the EP-500. 100 MJ of diesel X 32% efficiency = 32 MJ, Altenator efficiency = 86% MAX so now 32 MJ becomes 27.52 MJ. 100 MJ in, only 27.52 MJ out. Starting with WALL eletricity, at 100 MJ in = 90 MJ out. WALL electricity blows away on board generated electricity, Got a 30 mile extension cord? Put the 695 pound beast machine in your trunk.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BDS - In my example, the 14% figure is not a load represented by a percentage of electrical load compared to engine load. I am saying that a 50% efficient altenator, needs twice as many MJ of input as it produces.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Silverados1500 -- That's what I'm saying, they do not waste 14% of the total available energy. A 24V system pushing 4800 Watts will require 200 amps. A high powered 350 amp would be able to maintain this output while only putting a 4-5% load to the total system energy. Their report says they used 4.84% of the diesel equivalent to make the HHO which coincides with this analogy. This amount gave them a 15.07% gain in fuel savings...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BDS - The AUSSY study did not use eletricity generated by turning a 32% efficient diesel engine and then turning a 50-62% efficient altenator. THEY USED ELETRICITY FROM THE GRID YOU MORON.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@EnergySupply2008 - You are the one being assinine! Every one has pointed out to you how your math is off by a long shot.
Diesel engine wastes 68 percent ?
Get a life you are not as smart as you think!
2H1O1 2 years ago
@2h101 : Diesel Engines are only 35-40% eff therefore they waste the rest. Do the math!!!
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@2h101 : pointed out his math is wrong, but that is a far cry from PROVING it is wrong. Just because you SAY its wrong means nothing.
Silverados1500 2 years ago
@2H101 - Yes, the Aussy study said the efficiency of the diesel engine was 32%, therefore, 68% of the Mega Joules or BTU's of the diesel fuel are going to the cooling system, the exhaust and the surrounding air, leaving only 32% to do useful work and turn the altenator. Hello, EARTH to 2H101 - Time to find the switch to your brain and turn it on.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@EnergySupply2008 - Where did you get your math?
Altenator will not waste 14 percent!
2H1O1 2 years ago
@2H101 - I was being generous to HHO nut cases when I said the altenator wastes 14%. According to the Horst Bauer Automotive Handbook 4th Edition, efficiency of automotive alternators is limited by fan cooling loss, bearing loss, iron loss, copper loss, and the voltage drop in the diode bridges; at part load, efficiency is between 50-62% depending on the size of alternator, and varies with alternator speed.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@BDS - Your 2% figure is meaningless, the EP-500 at 11500 watts power requirement is 833 amps at 13.8 volts. My ammeter useually reads around 13 amps, so 833 amps is 64 TIMES MORE.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Lets see you went into great detail to show that they used 4338 watts to make their HHO now you say its 11,500 watts. Which is it? Why did it change? Was it because my 2% figure from fueleconomy gov goes against your argument so now you have to change things to make it work for you? Spin Spin Spin, that's what you are best at...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - The amount of watts do not really matter because the WALL electricity comes out of the EP-500 power supply at 90% efficiency. IE ..............
100 MJ of diesel input X 32% = 32MJ, but if the altenator is only 50% efficient under the strain of high amps then 100 MJ in = 16 MJ out.
With 100 MJ in:
AUSSIE study = 90 MJ out
On board 16 MJ out
Need 5.625 times more diesel input for the electrical generation portion = AUSSY study is TOTAL BULLSHIT.