Re: How you Use 50 50 mix of H2O Gas with Our PICC

[axelerat3d]

have to continue - common HHO explanation is that it improves combustion. Combustion engines are only 30% efficient so surely improving combustion would help - right? Well nope - its not like the engines only burn 30$ of the fuel in the mixture. Combustion in modern engines is actually quite complete - the efficiency issues are else where. Waste heat in exhaust (pistons can only capture so much of the heat) conducted heat, friction etc. Changing flame characteristics can do only so much.

[axelerat3d]

the poster of the video is of course right. However the presentation is a little convoluted. Simply goes like this: internal combustion engine has efficiency around 30% - even if your engine created no waste heat at all you couldn't more than triple your mileage without reaching efficiency of over 100% (=impossible)..

[jrussellslack]

Hey, Einstein, you'd fit right in with the tired old codgers who tried to disprove LENR (aka 'cold fusion' to the pathologically skeptic). They're the ones who've been disproven. Science is about making the observations then trying a theory that explains it, not nay-saying anything you don't understand as it doesn't fit your obsolete theories masquerading as 'laws.' There's a cool bunch of dudes that would love to sign you up: The Flat Earth Society.

[TommeyReed]

Its called steam.

Its not HHO!

1000 watts of power will produce 8.7 cu/ft in one hour.

1 watt will rise temperature 1 degree for each pound of water.

All of the so called HHO is really steam going into the engine.

20 amp at 12v= 240 watts or will rise the temperature of one pound of water 240 degrees.

They just don't know the truth!

They would be better to inject water into the engine, this would change into Gas laws.

This increase power output!

[LoneOarman]

Many scams regarding this technology. There is a ytube video which shows that water expands 1800 times in mass when vaporized, when water bond is broken. Sure, you get a little hydrogen, but the major power boost is coming from the 1800x "steam" effect. Here's the video:

/watch?v=YGp7hMUXjmI

[LoneOarman]

The amount of electrical power that resides in our atmosphere is astounding. Herr Plauson found in his experiments that a single balloon sent aloft to a height of 300 yards gave a constant current at 400 volts of 1.8 amperes, or in 24 hours over 17-1/4 kilowatts! By using two balloons in connection with a special condenser battery, the power obtained was 81-1/2 kilowatts in 24 hours. The actual current delivered was 6.8 amperes at 500 volts.

[tomterahedrob]

read an old issue of Hot Rodding from 1984,the article is"Smokey Yunicks incredible Hot Air Engine"he gets 50mpg and 200hp by vaporizing the fuel air mixture ina Pontiac Fiero.

[tripperdan99]

interesting conversation and thank you for your work and calculations. The GEET modified engine does some interesting things, I'm sure the author may have already seen some stuff that MIT did in relation (though they'd never admit to it). Aside from the PICC, the other aspect of HHO causes feathers to get ruffled too. The issue is that traditionally Current is used. If you look at the work of Meyer, he didn't use much current at all (.25 amp?) to produce hydrogen. This still stumps people.

[shawnawrites]

Actually, they are not burning the fuel as a liquid anymore, that's the whole point of the PICC. It's converting the fuel into vapor before returning to the combustion chamber. I know soemone that made a setup like theirs on a roto-tiller and it can run for hours on one gallon of gas mixed with water, same power output. This is not an HHO setup.

There are problems too when engineers only think within the boundaries of math and science, that is what is killing the inventors of this generation.

[lamont22222]

yep they love to live in the box what ever happen to discovery or invention not just a new angel on the same old tired stuff

[BigCJ1982]

You're basing all of this reasoning on claims made by a couple of bumpkins who used some HHO plans they found online. Do you really think they meant that they just mixed water and gas together?

Also, care to support your vague assertion that it takes "quite a bit" of electricity to produce "relatively small amounts" of HHO?

I'll bet you think nuclear reactors are overunity devices, too. You might want to ask your university for a refund on your degree.

[CodeMercenary]

To compute electricity requirement, first compute the number of free electrons in one mole of HHO:

((1+1+2)/3)N[A] * e = 128 kC/mol

Assuming 2A power source @ 3 Ohms:

E = 6V

P = 12W

t = 64s

So to create just one mole of HHO, you'd have to run a 6V power supply at 2A for a minute. Assuming perfect efficiency, 768J of energy would be stored in the generated HHO gas. This is what I mean by "quite a bit". I'm not going to bother responding to the nuclear power comment.

[BigCJ1982]

1) A mole of H2 releases roughly 240 kJ when burned.

2) No wonder you're turned around - still stuck in classical chemistry. Bone up on your quantum mechanics, specifically, the application of electric fields to fluid & gas boundaries. The formula you presented above is heavily dumbed-down and not at all a true representation of molecular mechanics in e fields.

[CodeMercenary]

I thought my results seemed strange. Well, assuming your new figure of 240 kJ:

2A * 6V = 12W

240 kJ / 12W = 5.5h

And this is "a lot" of electricity.

"Quantum physics" is not a magical incantation you can invoke that will enable you to break the first law of thermodynamics. It is quite reliant on the conservation principle to work properly. Take a look at the schrodinger equation if you don't believe me.

[tomterahedrob]

isnt the point of HHO to get your gasoline burned more thoroughly?Ford says hydrogen supplementation gets 24% better fuel economy.I see it as like a stratified charge engine or a split fire spark plug on steroids.

[vb6josh]

thats a $2,400 rip off. i received a qoute from them, + i was told by an ASE instructor that the Feds is not allowing any modifications to the Catalic onverter..

Could you run any numbers on HHO created through electrolosys? How much energy it outputs?

[CodeMercenary]

Well, the energy output is guarenteed to be less than the input required to perform the electrolysis. It actually takes quite a bit of electricity to produce relatively small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen.

[johnnyboy922]

also your engine wont run because only so much fuel will be injected and it wont combust with the amount of energy needed if you watered it down. just like a beer wont burn but a shot of vodka will. your engine cant run on less fuel

[CodeMercenary]

Yep. Just using my powers of multiplication and simple physics to dispatch a silly pipe dream!

[chuckda]

those who insist this can't be done that way should not interupt those who are doing it.

[johnnyboy922]

thank you for actually doing the math because there are people stupid enough to actually buy their stupid system. even if it did work i would not run water through my fu**ing engine. thats just stupid

[riskmaker007]

has anyone thought of using 50% butane and 25% banana oil and 25% monkey saliva? gas mileage may not go up but it sure would be entertaining!!!

[naieork]

Having difficulty posting on your site...

[CodeMercenary]

It seems like you're a new user to YouTube. Looks like you just joined, too. You've got a pretty firm grasp of engineering and chemistry, though, but seem to be a little unfamilliar to the wide world of the internet. I'd suspect that you might be a retired engineer, but you type in proper English in all of your posts. Perhaps you're a professor from a private or state university? In any case, I should point out that there's a character limit that prevents you from typing long posts.

[naieork]

+++ CodeMercenary +++

Isn't this an open system...?

In other words, its not gasoline alone in the equation. Rather, its several addtional constituents such as H(g)+O(g), some sort of mystery fuel additive that acts an reduction agent, plus the excitation(ionizing) and passive super-heating?

Therefore, additional calculations need to be done via some sort of quantitative analysis I guess?

[CodeMercenary]

As far as I know, the designers of this engine claimed that the mere addition of water to their fuel mix was sufficient to boost the engine's power output.

I'm not sure that quantitative analysis would reveal that much. The authors admit that their engine takes water in as an input, so it's pretty likely that we'd find water in the exhaust as well--whether or not any stoichiometric mix of H+O is in the fuel.

[gibsonrockin247]

And I really don't think you would have to worry about brittle metal. the hho cools the burn by the water vapor some how , Because the engine starts running cooler, I can put my hand on the head and leave it there. the exhaust gets super heated, up to the point of the reactor then super cools. You tell me

[CodeMercenary]

The reason it's cool to the touch is because the majority of your combustion is occuring outside of the engine, in the exhaust. The reason for this is because the timing and pressure is all wrong--the engine was designed to burn gasoline, not hydrogen fuel. If you give me the actual amounts of hydrogen you're burning, I can tell you if the water produced from H2 + O could be responsible for any cooling.

[gibsonrockin247]

I believe that this is possible but not a good explanation of what happened. they are burning three kinds of main fuel gas vapor- hho vapor- oxygen vapor- run through a reactor which turns it into plasma. I have two test models myself but have not got tis good of results. the delivery system is the key, but it can be done. with 80 percent water and 20 percent gasoline I get three time the run time on a 10 horse wiscosin , but my fuel deliver is poor quality,

[firedreign]

Wouldn't you find it funny if the first ever internal combustion engine was built in 1806 and ran on water, but that was over 200 years ago,the whole point of a hho fuel cell is to make an on demand system, no storage hence less danger unlike hydrogen fuel cells. Im sure that since water hasnt been researched as a viable fuel source,developement for a stable hho cell enough to produce for current engines has been left to independent scientists and sketchy inventors with nofunding but whatdoiknow

[CodeMercenary]

Water isn't a viable fuel source. It takes energy to electrolyze water, and you can't make this energy up by burning the hydrogen gas. There's also the little problem that the high temperature combustion of hydrogen makes most metals rather brittle.

[mcgehee1980]

or you just forgot to factor in the fact that they used two types of fuels the second time that would be the reason for the lower gas usage. they only use 2 lbs of gas and how much HHO

[CodeMercenary]

They claimed to be using a 50/50 mix. HHO at STP has a lower energy density by volume than gasoline. So, no, that won't save them, either.

[jesokingcryst]

I know! This runs on energy from electricity stored in the HHO.

solar energy -> electricity -> HHO (Oxyhydrogen) -> new invention here -> moving car.

If HHO will be at least as safe to use as gasoline we'll have ecological cars and I think HHO could store more energy than accumulator.

[CodeMercenary]

Hydrogen combustion isn't very safe, though. Hydrogen is volatile and explosive, and burning it will make metal very brittle. Finally, why not just go solar energy -> electricity -> moving car, and skip out the HHO step entirely?

[jesokingcryst]

Batteries are quite heavy and slow to recharge, and that makes the car less efficient.

Ok, maybe batteries + electric engine are just as heavy as normal engine + gas.

There was an electric car, by general motors if I remember right, and they took those cars back because of short range.

Finally hybrid cars are less efficient than modern light small cars.

That's why HHO sounds ... interesting.

[intj123]

you can get more energy out than is put in, it's called overunity.

[CodeMercenary]

You can't get more energy out than you put in. Over unity breaks the first law of thermodynamics an has never been observed.

[Benedetto1199]

This is not new. This was done in So. Cal. in the late 70's. It does work. Just spraying a little water into an air intake and one might see an increase in RPM.

[CodeMercenary]

Perhaps there is an increase in RPM due to increased manifold pressure--but there is no increase in energy or power output, and that's the crux of my argument, here.

[jesokingcryst]

In the end you'd be using up more fuel for the increase in PRM.

The only thing it could possible alter is the engine efficiency. But you can't get more energy from less energy.

[myronmhouse]

Gas burns slower than HHO. The HHO helps ignite the gas. Means less gas needed to run the car but the energy requirement is the same. You forgot to add the HHO energy to the formula. This IS NOT overunity.

[CodeMercenary]

Actually, the guy stated that the engine was a closed circuit. He was very clear to say that the gas was the only input fuel for the engine. As gas is the only input, it is also the only source of energy--and if it is the only source of energy, then this guy's claims violate unity.

[myronmhouse]

how can gasoline be the only input if you are talking about an engine running on HHO and gasoline mix?!!!! Let be the first to tell you that if you are doing math without the facts then what is the point of your video?

[CodeMercenary]

Because the video to which I replied included a demonstration of the technology. The guy had two fuels: Pure water (which was certainly pure water, as was demonstrated by the experimenter drank some of it) and gasoline, in equal amounts. The inventor claims to be producing HHO gas by some technique, but the fact remains that the only energetic input to this system is gasoline.

[myronmhouse]

well he did not present his experimant properly. You cannot use water to make HHO gas and combine it with gas to run an engine without useing the HHO gas. Common sense their. Might I direct you to Stan Meyer. If you have any experience in electrical circuits, you will find his design fascinating.

[CodeMercenary]

Do you have a link?

[jesokingcryst]

If the system doesn't use HHO (Oxyhydrogen) as input it must make it. To do that it must use energy to make it. If it uses HHO as gas, there you have it: "When ignited, this mixture combusts to water, making 142.35 kJ (34,116 gram calories) of heat for each gram of hydrogen burned: that is 286.97 kJ/mol of enthalpy."

Either way engine efficiency can't go over 100%.

But I'm still curious.

[CodeMercenary]

I don't care too much about your conspiracy theories; the fact remains that science does a very good job of explaining what we observe, and the laws we know of haven't been broken yet by anyone.

[mozon1967]

I can see that you have already choosen your pill, thats a shame. The way I see it the term conspiracy theroies or theorists is a term used by people too disallow hard hitting and long unanswered questions. Does every unanswered question lead to intrigue? Of coarse not! But maybe some of the most important ones.

[mozon1967]

One last thing and then I think we should just agree to disagree. Science can't explain even half of what is able to be observed and the laws have been broken a long time ago you just never heard about it in school.

[aarongriffin81]

Water contains Hydrogen which is what is being used in these tests. Nobody is making hydrogen just utilizing free energy. If you learn more about how to seperate hydrogen maybe you wont be so dumbfounded by the higher energy output vs input. If gasoline flowed as free as water and we ran our cars on it would you say, "wait, that goes against laws of phisics"? ...probably. Do some more research, the techknowledgy is there already but the Government has tried very hard to keep Public fuel taxable.

[CodeMercenary]

What I'm arguing, here, is much simpler than that. Energy from gasoline in an internal combustion engine is derived through (suprise) chemical combustion. We know the amount of energy that is stored in a certain amount of gasoline. My point, in the video, was that the experiment these people conducted couldn't have been done properly because it breaks unity.

[jesokingcryst]

All energy comes from somewhere (chemical, electromagnetic, potential, etc.), in that sense there is no free energy. Sum of energy that goes in must equal the Sum of energy that gets out.

To utilize energy stored in water we'd have to be producing as an effect something with less stored energy in it than h2o. Somehow I can't recall how much chemical energy is stored in water. Is there any?

[Fachwash]

Betterandbettertech is but yet another Dennis Lee shill. You remember.....Dennis Lee has, annually, predicted release of his over unity electrical generator since 1996. The $1000. device being sold is a COMPLETE farce! More snake oil bullshit!

[CodeMercenary]

Most of these people don't know the laws of physics, and as a result, don't see any of the problems with trying to defeat them.

[mozon1967]

Please read "The Final Theory".

[CodeMercenary]

I've read (some of) the first chapther of "The Final Theory" as you suggested, but this book reads more like a conspiracy theory than a scientific textbook. When I see people affix on how the government keeps them down, and that's the reason that their inventions don't work, it makes me suspicious of the claims.

[mozon1967]

Have you ever seen The Matrix? You can either choose the red pill or the blue pill. I say don't choose yet, you are too young. Wait untill your old enough to have discoverd why they say "Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction".

[CodeMercenary]

You seem to neglect that most of the scientific advances in our era were made by people in their twenties. Mathematicians are at the peak of their publishing capabilities and academic successes when they are about as old as I am. My age shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not your argument is valid.

[mozon1967]

I am not saying you are too young to be smart, in fact I've already stated before that I can tell that you are very smart! I'm just suggesting that you may be too young to be wise.

[mozon1967]

I don't want to make it sound like I'm defending their test results because I didn't study it as you did. I just don't want you to dismiss overunity so easily. Sorry, I should have said that first.

[CodeMercenary]

Perhaps we should have a video discussion about this. I think it would be interesting to have a longer conversation with someone who holds a contrary viewpoint, and it would be easier than discussing this in comments.

[kamilsk84life]

fucken geeks

[CodeMercenary]

What's the matter?  Having trouble keeping up with high school physics?

[GkillerDogg]

i think betterandbetter tech, is a critic.. and needs to do more research.. before blabbering away..

[GkillerDogg]

no sorry betterandbettertech, i was refering to codemercenary

[CodeMercenary]

Erm. The point of the video was to demonstrate that I'd done my research. If you have any disagreement with any of the figures I quoted or with my math, feel free to justify your claims. Otherwise you're in the same boat as the person I'm criticising.

[CodeMercenary]

Well, as you should be able to see from the computations I gave you, your test results require the violation of the conservation principle for them to be accurate. The energy out of the engine is greater than the energy you put into it in the form of fuel.

[mozon1967]

CodeMercenary you are very smart! I think you mean well (not a critic). Your math is undeniable. But remember that energy measurements are based on heat , but an internal combustion engine gets its power from cylinder pressure.

[mozon1967]

Also, all the principles and laws of physics you were taught in school are fundementally flawed at conception (admittedly by physicists). Check out the book "The Final Theory" by Mark McCutcheon. The first chapter is free online. It will change your mind. Mozon1967

[mozon1967]

When I said, "The physics you were taught" I meant "The physics WE were taught".

[BetterandBetterTech]

That test was run on straight Gasoline ! and it showed a 9 time increase in fuel mileage BetterandBetterTech Our test prove what we can do !

You brain can only put out what was put in ! Just like a CPU . Watch the Sollutions video on the site for your answers BetterandBetterTech