@drijfkip1 All you are saying is true. But this is one machine, one engine, one test. And it worked. This report cannot cover all aspects of every HHO device, and every engine. Each setup will see its own set of numbers. What this report proves is that the act of HHO enrichment works, despite those that say it is impossible. It IS possible, and here is the proof. That is the point of this report.
2. No one is claiming HHO is or can be overunity as presented.
I CARE ABOUT FACTS. And the facts say it works. There is nothing religious about that. Claiming this is some kind of religious thing is just a cowards way out of having to admit I AM RIGHT, and here is the proof. Proof is in these numbers.
This report doesn't take into account the energy required to create the H2O2. Pathetic and useless. If you're gonna use electric energy just use batteries instead of a wasteful electrolysis reaction
The article you link to is interesting. The main point of the work is the treatment of HHO as an ADDITIVE, and not as a fuel--add too much and fuel efficiency DECREASES rather than increases. Two problems:
1) The gains are small (ave. about 5%). And that would be the BEST EXPECTED.
2) NO mention is made of gasoline. HHO as an additive enhances the burn characteristics of diesel, to give slightly higher efficiency. That they don't MENTION gas implies it probably wouldn't work on gas.
This all seems like a waste of time. Wouldn't an accredited university have a better understanding of the measuring equipment than you do? If they cannot even calibrate their own equipment why do you put stock in anything they say?
Titanium quantum dot solar cells and grill mounted air intake turbines coupled with heat and kinetic energy reclamation device would be far superior. Couple that with a hydrogen fuel cell and gasoline almost becomes obsolete.
Carbon nanobatteries are far more efficient, even more so when linked together in a series. Titanium quantum dots are massively efficient solar collectors that can be painted onto a vehicle as a coating. I'm not being misled, I'm just massively intelligent. Nissan is already producing vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells. In 5 years fossil fuel will be obsolete except in collectible vehicles. If you really want to be ahead of the curve develop an efficient nanobattery engine. :3
I am also MASSIVELY intelligent. I am developing technologies that are far simpler than nanobattery engines. I agree with you that fossil fuels will be obsolete in just a few years. I will personally see to it.
Nanobatteries are fairly simple though. They can be made so easily that they are being called paper batteries :3 I'd do it myself but my prosthetic systems haven't been completed yet.
ES2008 (aka WT) said here: "At 30 LPM we know they were using about 7500 watts so all they needed to do was put five 110 amp altenators on the engine and see what happened."
First off, you DON'T know how many watts their electrolyzer drew, so don't ASSume, but it's irrelevant. Since bte was shown to increase in this study when factoring it in, the power required COULD NOT overload the generator, if it supplied it. Why in the world do you think they would have needed to put a.....
.....series of alternators on it??? It's a DIESEL POWERED ELECTRIC GENERATOR rated to produce 38kW at 1500 RPM. They could have powered the electrolyzer directly but chose not to (for simplicity) so that load cell power and electrolyzer power could be adjusted independently of each other. If they had, it would have required more diesel fuel to produce the same amount of output power to the load cell (larger denominator in bte quotient), BUT they would not have had to include.....
.....the power to the electrolyzer as an input to the system (smaller denominator in bte quotient). In other words, it would theoretically have balanced out the same! You CANNOT throw out this study based upon this. It is scientifically sound and it proves your oversimplified methods for gauging effect of different fuels upon bte and bsfc of ICE's as being PURELY a matter of their LHV is invalid!!! Maybe in their next study they will close the loop physically instead of just....
Part 4E .....mathematically. BTW I think your source of confusion is that you do not know how they determined the diesel equivalency of the electrical power. If you had read the paper carefully, especially the part about bsfc it'd be more clear. Of course it is dependent upon the diesel to electrical conversion efficiency which is the bte of the system (diesel energy + generator), which varied somewhat depending upon the conditions of the study. The point is you ASSume that they.....
.....did not factor it in!!! They are credentialed scientists that deserve respect and it was a peer reviewed process before their document could be published. If you still have questions, contact Dr. Bari. His contact information is given in the paper.
@captainwho1 - Eight and a half months ago, ZeroFossilFuel used what looks like a 5 HP engine and hooked an altenator to it and powered the HHO cell at 25 amps. His results were 6 percent less run time WITH HHO on a measured amount of fuel. 8.5 months and still no gain. How do you explain this study getting supposedly a 7.3 percent gain on a much bigger engine when Zero cannot get a gain on a much smaller engine?
I challenge those results. Last summer I posted a 6% GAIN on my BIGGER 11HP genset test. So I challenge you to explain this disparity. Using ZFF's test to discredit this study does not hold as I have posted evidence of my own to support these results.
@captainwho1 - The study provided no numbers on how they determined the diesel equivalency of the electrical power. Studies like the one NASA did on hydrogen, provide lots of numbers so that their conclusions can be understood. This study is laughable.
@captainwho1 - Nobody can put a diesel generator in their vehicle that operates its engine at 32% efficiency to power an electrical generator at 50-62 percent eficiency to generate HHO at approx 60% efficiency and feed the HHO to the vehicles engine to get a gain. Period.
You are wrong. I have a 7MMW machine that will not heat up. Your numbers are incorrect. That machine was used in the genset tests that disproved your math.
@ES2008 - You're severely in the doghouse dude. You made slanderous comments about their qualifications. You need to show us where you got that information to prove that you were innocently misled. If you cannot do that, then you have to admit that you made it up (LIED!!!). If so, why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say???
@Captainwho1 - Since the study listed no degrees, I assumed they were students. Grow up. Still avoiding the lack of efficiency when producing electricity NOT from tthe WALL, I see.
@ES2008 - My terms for continuing this discussion forward from this point is that you agree to be nicknamed "wormtongue". If you are OK with this we can continue?? You see I don't accept your answer that you assumed they were students since they didn't list their degrees. I have read many trade journal papers and I rarely, if ever have seen degrees mentioned. People of avg IQ would not think that students would be accepted to publish in peer reviewed journals and yours is, what, upper 3%??
@Captainwho1 - My terms are that you address the issue of generating the electricity required to duplicate the Austrailain study from a 32% efficient engine and a 86 percent efficient altenator. Why do you keep damcing around that issue and keep trying to divert from it?
@Captainwho1 - I have noticed that you ignored the issue I brought up. The EP-500 power supply will waste 10 percent of the WALL outlet electricity. Yet, to generate that electricity on board, with the same generator they used, will have losses of 68 percent for the engine and 14 percent for the approcimately five 110 amp altenators required. Plus, they did the study at 1500 RPM, 2500 RPM at 60 MPH is more typical, so add 66% to everything they did. Why the silence?
@EletrikRide - The study paper listed no degrees so I mistakenly thought they were just students. however, to call them professional HHO testers is quite a stretch. Their faulty study proves that.
In this study they were feeding the 38KW / 51HP engine a minimum of 25 liters of hydrogen per minute to produce five percent total diesel equivalent. Tell me Smack how many liters per minute does your SMACTANIUM GEN VI put out?
This study is not about my Gen VI. This study is about the viability of the technology.
Stick to the topic, don't try to undermine my work. You have just been shown proof that HHO is viable. You should concentrate on that, as it destroys your negative stance on the technology.
Not only did they perform this study using a device that is not my design, but they also did it on an engine that my design does not target.
@EletrikRide OK I will stick to the subject they used a 700 pound oxyhydrogen machine consuming 11.5kW/h via 220vAC to produce 25 liters per minute of hydrogen, how is this demonstrating the viability of the technology?
If the "study' has determined how much diesel they would need to make 11,500 watts on board a vehicle, instead of using eletricity from the WALL, it would be a whole different story. They would have easily proven that HHO is NOT viable.
Great work Smack!! My first install was on a 1800cc Turbo Diesel. I had great results, some of which I have not documented on Youtube, but with a bit of tweaking with the fueling and static timing of the injector pump I was able to achieve over 65mpg everytime, even in town traffic as I was able to lower the engine idle far below 500rpm thanks to the HHO and the few little adjustments I made to the injector pump. Check out my vid's if you get time. Peace.
@BlackDogSociety - It is you that is twisting. I acknowledge that the 2.9% thermal efficiency improvent at 6.06% is possiblbly correct. However, they present no data on the energy input to achieve those results. They simply say 30 LPM
The energy required is irrelevant. What is relevant is it was included into the final efficiency calculations. The final efficiency numbers are all that matters and you know this. The efficiency of the cell is not the focus of the paper.
You disagree with the study, make a video and present your points.
You are grasping, desperate to try and undermine this study that destroys your BTU math.
"I acknowledge that the 2.9% thermal efficiency improvent at 6.06% is possiblbly correct."
How can you acknowledge that there is a 2.9% bte improvement AND at the same time claim that your video "Absolute Proof It Is Impossible For HHO To Increase Miles Per Gallon" is the truth? Your whole premise is that, since it takes more energy to create the hydrogen than you can get out of it by burning it in a bomb calorimeter (how LHV of fuels are calc'd), it is impossible to increase the...
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.
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.
LOL, that is not what was reported. Your assumptions are not the final word. You have a lot of assumptions there that you cannot verify. Instead of assuming things, you should try to analyze the data as it has been posted.
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.
the educated professionals here at smack university have once again lorded over your inadequate studies. Each and every one of your followers needs to return to your basic studies to relearn what you thought you knew about combustions and efficiency.
This study supports what I have already taught you, and furthermore proves every statement I have made. Statements I continue to stand behind.
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.
Once again, Professor Smack LORDS over your false math.
Your assumptions are based on your faulty understanding of the process. You guess at these figures, and assume worst case scenario to try to support your false math.
Again, the real world tests have been done that conclusively prove the technology I support.
And studies like this one provide scientific data that explain the real world results. with this, you cannot refute or compete.
@Captainwho1 - HHV and LHV are not calc'd. The calorimeter combustion chamber is surrounded by water. They start the test at 25C. For HHV they wait till the combustion chamber returns to 25C before measuring the water temp. For LHV they wait until the combustion chamber returns to 150C - It is a valid test that all scientists use to measure the energy in a fuel.
A bomb calorimeter test is not the final word as I have explained to you in excruciating detail. The bomb calorimeter test on covers one small aspect of the entire quality analization of a fuel. I have clearly shown you that the reactivity of the fuel is also a vital parameter.
P=E/T. You cannot refute this. It matters how fast a fuel burns - even more than it's BTU content.
I have shown you the BMW Hydrogen 7 uses the same amount of BTU to travel 300 miles on hydrogen as it does on gasoline. Your P=E/T means nothing because you do not put any numbers with the formula.
I will remind you YET AGAIN - for the "countlessth" time - bottled hydrogen is not the same as hydrogen produced from a cell. I have a study in hand that I will be doing a video on that scientifically PROVES this statement using lab equipment designed for this purpose.
You will be forced to accept that electrolysis hydrogen is superior to bottled hydrogen, just as you are being forced to see the indisputable truth here that HHO injection works.
The faster a fuel burns, the more of it you need. For example the DOE says that per cubic foot at 60F, hydrogen gas had 270 BTU and gasoline has 836,000 BTU. HHO is 2/3 hydrogen, so 180 BTU. Adjust for 120F, now only 160.22 BTU. So a cubic foot of gasoline will get you 5213 times further down the road than a cubic foot of HHO.
Your statement is not correct. Not only does math not agree with you, scientific tests also show that you are mistaken. The concept of P = E/T tears apart your entire angle. As I have shown you, a properly tuned engine can and will take full advantage of a faster burning fuel
@Whatthephuque - According to the United States Department of Energy, per cubic foot at 60F, liguid gasoline has 836,000 BTU of energy and hydrogen is gaseous at 60F and only has 270 BTU. HHO only 160.22 BTU at 120F. When people say Apples to oranges, I say, to replace one cubic foot of gasoline, you need to build a 1 foot wide by 1 foot tall by 5218 foot long tank and hook it to the back of your car. It is pretty clear that HHO is an ant fart compared to gasoline.
ES2008 said here in this thread: "The faster a fuel burns, the more of it you need."
That's not true in an ICE. We want to more closely approach what is called "the ideal otto cycle" wherein the combustion process occurs in a near instantaneous amount of time at constant volume. Google it dude, it's never impossible for anyone to learn something, if they want to that is.
"HHV and LHV are not calc'd. The calorimeter combustion chamber is surrounded by water."
How do you think the first person did it? The heat released by the combustion equals the mass of the water x the specific heat capacity of the water x the temperature increase of the water. But this is SAD ES2008, the way you squirm to avoid discussing the specifics of this study. You've been wrong about everything so far, yet you still proceed with bravado. STICK TO THE STUDY.
In addition, do you know what bsfc (brake specific fuel consumption) means? It is the inverse equivalent, effectively, of mpg! You do know that they showed the bsfc improved in this study, right?
Thanks for your support! And don't expect any apologies from these cultists. They are to self absorbed and hateful to ever admit they could be wrong. Their egos will not allow it....
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,
Not so fast. The error lies with you. Your assumption is incorrect. The document is clear. You take issue with the wording, bring it up to the writers of the study done.
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.
Again, you are panicking because this study proves you wrong. I know it must be very hard on your ego since you have put so much time and energy into disproving HHO.
I feel the pain you feel for all your wasted effort. Bad news for you is that this is only one of many published studies I will be posting on.
You take issue with the study, contact the persons who performed it.
OUTPUT POWER = electrical power drawn by the load cell. INPUT POWER = electrical power into electrolyzer + LHV of diesel fuel times the mass flow rate of diesel fuel.
Well said, good chain of posts. I guess I assumed these things were self explanatory, especially for those who normally read carefully and have a reputation for being thorough. It's funny how predispositions can blind people sometimes.
Smack, I or anyone could say the same about you, you sell HHO units so you could be being blinded by predispositions. Later, I will respond to Captainwho1
"In addition, they provide ABSOLUTELY NO information on how they made their calculations, regarding the electricity."
How do you think they made them? It isn't rocket science to measure electrical power input to a power supply by multiplying V x A. They were quite clear that when they calculated bte of the system, they included the electrical power to the electrolyzer as an INPUT to the system. You know that bte is calculated by dividing output power by input power, right?
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.
Es its a diesel. Of course it has high compression. Most people are indeed using low compression gasoline turds. My 12k pound truck gets damn near the same mpg as a corolla. and better than most other 4 cylinder gas cars. the article looks interesting I need to find the time to read it.
All my vehicles are going diesel, last longer., better mpg, cleaner overall and huge variety of alt fuel readily avail.
BTW, didn't you listen to the video and read the document???? Being the expert you think you are, you should know that a diesel engine has high compression ratios.
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.
again its a diesel. my truck governs the fuel at 2800 rpm, ( soon to be 3500) so its best torque and efficiency is indeed between 1400 to 1800 rpm. I know it kinda sucks that most of your calcs are for a gas car but you may as well start gearing up for diesel. As soon as the USA gets its head out of its butt we will all be driving diesel like most of the world already does. More power better economy less resources used. Its a win win.
Diesel is where its at. I want to try and develop a lightweight diesel genset and target big rigs, the lifeblood of our country. We are busy working on getting a big rig truck as a donor for a series EV conversion - similar to a train setup but smaller.
international and kenworth already are running hybrids on west coast. and ups is working on a really cool hydraulic hybrid. it uses hydraulics for braking and stores pressure in an accumulator then uses stored pressure to move vehicle in stop and go. many different techs starting to catch on.
i bought a yanmar 5500watt to put on my service rig. so tests will follow soon
If you take issue with the study, or you have not learned how to read, I suggest you take it up with the authors responsible. They can hold your hand, I will not.
So nobody supporting HHO thinks these numbers are funky? Page 1, 15.07% savings at 19 kw load with 6.06% HHO - yet the last page says 7.3% savings. They do not even seem to be able to keep their lies straight.
ES, you will say anyone and everyone is lying just to preserve your stance. God Himself could speak to you directly and show you it works, and you would claim He is lying too. Whatever dude. You have been served the facts.
"They do not even seem to be able to keep their lies straight."
@ES2008 - You wish. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself. Just admit that this paper proves your overly simplistic approach of BTU calculations of the fuels only applies to bomb calorimeters or explosive devices. That's not what we're doing, we're trying to generate electricity or propel a vehicle down a road.
Read the paper again and don't twist things or take things out of context and misquote them.
Hint: the 15.07% refers to the diesel fuel savings alone. The 7.3% savings factors in the diesel fuel equivalencies of all the energy inputs into the system. But with your high IQ you knew that. You're just joshing with us!
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.
If you take issue with the study, contact the individuals responsible. I have provided reference information in the sidebar.
I'm so sorry your months of primitive BTU math has been destroyed in one fell swoop.
Take a few weeks to recover, then make your own video to try and convince others that this published scientific study performed by an accredited university is wrong. See, this time its not me you have to argue with.
ES2008(aka WT) said over here watch?v=AvJdnpxKJks :
"The study was published, yes, but peer reviewed? I see no mention of peer review in the study. Just publishing something does not make it true, if it did, all fiction books would be true."
"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."
...ASSUMPTIONS again that, conveniently, just happen to suit your agenda. You sure don't go to too much trouble to find out the correct answers to things!!!
Just google "Peer Review Policy Statement for Fuel" and stop LYING (oh right assuming)!!!
Oh and this just in, ES2008 (aka WT) said over here watch?v=z5s8UCmHLcQ :
"It is too bad the Australian study was not peer reviewed, even though Smack claimes it was."
There's too many lies to keep track of, being spread in a troll-like fashion all over youtube. Again, just google "Peer Review Policy Statement for Fuel".
hahaha .....no I have no illusions....but after all those insulting comments towards people who are doing some modest experiments I think it's good to set things a bit straight . Now their viewers can read the truth. Although you will always have some weird fanatics left who can't handle the truth, like EnergySupply2008, indeed he should write to the Australian research team. It is weird and not done, to attack a reader from an officially published scientific paper.
There is an error in that report. It says they used 24 volts but the Epoch EP-500 uses either 220 V or 380 V with 11500 watts consumption., according to the Epoch web site.
If you have an issue with the study performed, I suggest you contact the individuals who conducted it. The contact information is clearly posted here.
Bottom line, this study tears your faulty BTU calcs to shreds. HHO injection works. All of your points of contention are just dust in the wind. You wanted proof, here it is.
You reject the proof, that is your issue, not mine. You take issues with the study, contact the individuals responsible. I'm just presenting the data as published.
Smack - All they gave us was words, no numbers showing how they calculated energy consumption of the external HHO machine running on 220/380 volts. Most commercial machines operate at about 4 MMW to avoid heat and steam. At 30 LPM we know they were using about 7500 watts so all they needed to do was put five 110 amp altenators on the engine and see what happened.
It doesn't matter. All that matters is the final efficiency numbers. You know I'm right. All power factors were included in the final efficiency calculation.
Put your money where your mouth is. Show me the letter that you write to the research team in Australia who wrote the paper.
Do publish an official paper with prove from your claims..... I dare you to go fight the claims from the Australian university with them. If you don't write to them then shut up man.
@Boyntonstu - Gallon of diesel = 135.52 Mega Joules of energy. 60 MPH at 30 MPG uses 2 gallons per hour = 0.0333 gallon per minute. 135.52 X 0.0333 = 4.517 MJ per minute. 4.84% of that = 0.218639 MJ per minute requirement.
The above is all based on the Lower heating value of diesel. My video used higher heating value. In the comments I converted to LHV. HHO at 120F = 0.00611 MJ per liter. Therefore, need 35.8 LPM. Smack's cell does 0.5 LPM at 10 amps. Only 1.4% of the requirement.
ES2008, two 12 year olds have a bicycle race. They are both equally physically fit and both have the same energy.
Rider A strongly applies downward pressure on the peddles as they are 45 degrees after top dead center. Rider B strongly applies downward pressure when the peddle is at top dead center.
Which rider wins the race and which rider is more fatiqued?
What have you learned from this demonstration? Does increased efficiency mean more useful power from the same energy?
@jjenson2006 - As my video points out, at 60 MPH in a 24 MPG vehicle, 3.05 LPM of HHO only provides 0.41 percent of the energy required. Thus, we are still running on 99.59 percent gasoline and carrying a 695 pound Epoch EP-500 adds weight that imposes a MPG penality and it runs on 220/380 volts so the 30 mile extension cord is a big problem to solve. LOL
In no way am I trying to compare the Epoch to my cell. The point of this presentation is to demonstrate that the technology works. The rest is just technical details.
"As my video points out, at 60 MPH in a 24 MPG vehicle, 3.05 LPM of HHO only provides 0.41 percent of the energy required."
Where did you get this "fact" that defines how much energy is required by HHO to allow an increase in mileage on all engines?
The EP-500 has a huge transformer in it; that accounts for most of its weight and it's only required to reduce the amplitude of the A/C input. Power can get gotten from an alternator which does not need a tranformer.
@jjenson2006 - The rider who tries to apply pressure at top dead center risks breaking his leg as the damn pedal does not want to move. My contention is that the reason they showed increased efficiency is because their power input numbers were too low and would have been much higher if they had not used eletricity from the WALL.
@Eletrikride - What you and JJ avoid talking about is the electricity from the WALL in the Australian study that only has losses of 10% to the power supply, in the form of heat. While on board the losses are 68 percent for the engine and 14% for the altenator to generate the same amount of electricity.
"The rider who tries to apply pressure at top dead center risks breaking his leg as the damn pedal does not want to move."
Well then please acknowledge that if the efficiency of the burn is increased; thus allowing the timing to be slightly retarded, the SAME energy can do MORE work.
It seems any time anyone brings up burn efficiency (which has nothing to do with adding more energy), you always go to your "You can't get more energy out than you put in" rant.
To say that it is impossible to increase mileage without adding more energy is like deciding which olympic runner will win the race, based on who has the most energetic legs.
It's not how much energy is used, it is how that energy is used.
I don't know if HHO boosts mileage, because I haven't actually experimented with it. When you actually experiment with it, you will have the respect of others that want the truth from hard data.
Six percent HHO !
That is a huge amount that no jars under the hood will ever produce.
It was produced by a industrial Epoch EP500 machine that consumes 11.5 Kilowatts!
And that little engine produced only 28 Kw.
This video actually makes me think that what we are doing has very little effect
drijfkip1 5 months ago
@drijfkip1 All you are saying is true. But this is one machine, one engine, one test. And it worked. This report cannot cover all aspects of every HHO device, and every engine. Each setup will see its own set of numbers. What this report proves is that the act of HHO enrichment works, despite those that say it is impossible. It IS possible, and here is the proof. That is the point of this report.
EletrikRide 4 months ago
@EletrikRide
The end conclusion of this reseach doesn't say anything like "It worked".
There was no claim of overunity or something like that..
This video actually proves that the little bit of HH0 in your car does nothing at all.
Seems like this whole HHO thing is like religion. Just have faith that it's going to work. Who cares about facts.
drijfkip1 4 months ago
@drijfkip1
What you are saying is not true.
1. The data PROVES HHO enrichment works.
2. No one is claiming HHO is or can be overunity as presented.
I CARE ABOUT FACTS. And the facts say it works. There is nothing religious about that. Claiming this is some kind of religious thing is just a cowards way out of having to admit I AM RIGHT, and here is the proof. Proof is in these numbers.
No faith required.
EletrikRide 50 minutes ago
This is great work!
You provide us with the rescue from energy crisis and air pollution!
The scientists who performed the paper are the most credible ever, and so are you!
kleenex3000 2 years ago
Thank you so much!
EletrikRide 2 years ago
To obtain hydrogen production without electricity you can dissolve aluminum in a sodium hydoxide solution. watch?v=w2DY1gSiEmM
You Can also read about it on Wikipedia look up Lye then look for Hazardous reactions
ke4uyp 2 years ago
Hey I just read your cited paper.
All they did in the Australian study is measure the gains when using HHO as a diesel additive.
I dont think there is any actual dispute regarding the gains that you get by adding HHO do fuel.
Everyone agrees you get gains, mainly through better thermal efficiencies.
BUT, they generated the HHO from an outside generator, not an onboard generator that is powered by the engine.
I mean, is there something missing here? You DO understand where this leads, right?
ChickenHawk110 2 years ago
The account for that energy required in their efficiency calcs as I point out in the video
EletrikRide 2 years ago
This report doesn't take into account the energy required to create the H2O2. Pathetic and useless. If you're gonna use electric energy just use batteries instead of a wasteful electrolysis reaction
whatyouwantbiotchki 2 years ago
False. It does. Please pay attention.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
So this is a rehash of the water-injection idea?
papafox 2 years ago
no, it is not.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
The article you link to is interesting. The main point of the work is the treatment of HHO as an ADDITIVE, and not as a fuel--add too much and fuel efficiency DECREASES rather than increases. Two problems:
1) The gains are small (ave. about 5%). And that would be the BEST EXPECTED.
2) NO mention is made of gasoline. HHO as an additive enhances the burn characteristics of diesel, to give slightly higher efficiency. That they don't MENTION gas implies it probably wouldn't work on gas.
GetMeThere1 2 years ago
Not only is your statement untrue, but your logic is false. And to top it all off, I have posted proof right here that HHO works with gasoline also.
The issue is no longer up for debate...
EletrikRide 2 years ago
This all seems like a waste of time. Wouldn't an accredited university have a better understanding of the measuring equipment than you do? If they cannot even calibrate their own equipment why do you put stock in anything they say?
Titanium quantum dot solar cells and grill mounted air intake turbines coupled with heat and kinetic energy reclamation device would be far superior. Couple that with a hydrogen fuel cell and gasoline almost becomes obsolete.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
don't be mislead. If you have followed my work, you know HHO is only one branch of many technologies I am developing.
HHO is far from obsolete, which I will be reinforcing very soon.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Carbon nanobatteries are far more efficient, even more so when linked together in a series. Titanium quantum dots are massively efficient solar collectors that can be painted onto a vehicle as a coating. I'm not being misled, I'm just massively intelligent. Nissan is already producing vehicles with hydrogen fuel cells. In 5 years fossil fuel will be obsolete except in collectible vehicles. If you really want to be ahead of the curve develop an efficient nanobattery engine. :3
PinkProgram 2 years ago
I am also MASSIVELY intelligent. I am developing technologies that are far simpler than nanobattery engines. I agree with you that fossil fuels will be obsolete in just a few years. I will personally see to it.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
We'll see :3
Nanobatteries are fairly simple though. They can be made so easily that they are being called paper batteries :3 I'd do it myself but my prosthetic systems haven't been completed yet.
PinkProgram 2 years ago
We wont need any batteries at all....
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Comment removed
merlinspower 2 years ago
Weird. I suspect he is up to something....
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@ES2008 (aka WT) - watch?v=QiZdY9rw-uo
captainwho1 2 years ago
@ES2008 (aka WT) - to quote Richard Crenna in Rambo, "It's over Johnny".
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 1E
ES2008 (aka WT) said here: "At 30 LPM we know they were using about 7500 watts so all they needed to do was put five 110 amp altenators on the engine and see what happened."
First off, you DON'T know how many watts their electrolyzer drew, so don't ASSume, but it's irrelevant. Since bte was shown to increase in this study when factoring it in, the power required COULD NOT overload the generator, if it supplied it. Why in the world do you think they would have needed to put a.....
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 2E
.....series of alternators on it??? It's a DIESEL POWERED ELECTRIC GENERATOR rated to produce 38kW at 1500 RPM. They could have powered the electrolyzer directly but chose not to (for simplicity) so that load cell power and electrolyzer power could be adjusted independently of each other. If they had, it would have required more diesel fuel to produce the same amount of output power to the load cell (larger denominator in bte quotient), BUT they would not have had to include.....
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 3E
.....the power to the electrolyzer as an input to the system (smaller denominator in bte quotient). In other words, it would theoretically have balanced out the same! You CANNOT throw out this study based upon this. It is scientifically sound and it proves your oversimplified methods for gauging effect of different fuels upon bte and bsfc of ICE's as being PURELY a matter of their LHV is invalid!!! Maybe in their next study they will close the loop physically instead of just....
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 4E .....mathematically. BTW I think your source of confusion is that you do not know how they determined the diesel equivalency of the electrical power. If you had read the paper carefully, especially the part about bsfc it'd be more clear. Of course it is dependent upon the diesel to electrical conversion efficiency which is the bte of the system (diesel energy + generator), which varied somewhat depending upon the conditions of the study. The point is you ASSume that they.....
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 5E
.....did not factor it in!!! They are credentialed scientists that deserve respect and it was a peer reviewed process before their document could be published. If you still have questions, contact Dr. Bari. His contact information is given in the paper.
captainwho1 2 years ago
@captainwho1 - Eight and a half months ago, ZeroFossilFuel used what looks like a 5 HP engine and hooked an altenator to it and powered the HHO cell at 25 amps. His results were 6 percent less run time WITH HHO on a measured amount of fuel. 8.5 months and still no gain. How do you explain this study getting supposedly a 7.3 percent gain on a much bigger engine when Zero cannot get a gain on a much smaller engine?
watch?v=9GAcjkx8F48
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
I challenge those results. Last summer I posted a 6% GAIN on my BIGGER 11HP genset test. So I challenge you to explain this disparity. Using ZFF's test to discredit this study does not hold as I have posted evidence of my own to support these results.
watch?v=7hW-WqxvE3A&feature=PlayList&p=3906F0575F849BDC&index=5
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@captainwho1 - The study provided no numbers on how they determined the diesel equivalency of the electrical power. Studies like the one NASA did on hydrogen, provide lots of numbers so that their conclusions can be understood. This study is laughable.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Yes, it is laughable that your math has been dis proven.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@captainwho1 - Nobody can put a diesel generator in their vehicle that operates its engine at 32% efficiency to power an electrical generator at 50-62 percent eficiency to generate HHO at approx 60% efficiency and feed the HHO to the vehicles engine to get a gain. Period.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Lots of assumptions in that statement. Lets just remember what you said here for future reference.....
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@captainwho1 - Every high volume HHO machine I have seen is about 4 MMW to avoid heat build up. The 30.6 LPM is 30600 ml/4MMW = 7650 watts.
The BTE went up because they were using highly efficient WALL electricity, where the losses in generation are at the power company.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
You are wrong. I have a 7MMW machine that will not heat up. Your numbers are incorrect. That machine was used in the genset tests that disproved your math.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
I get the feeling my point that ES2008 (aka WT) cannot be trusted has been made and I won't beat a dead horse.
captainwho1 2 years ago
@ES2008 - You're severely in the doghouse dude. You made slanderous comments about their qualifications. You need to show us where you got that information to prove that you were innocently misled. If you cannot do that, then you have to admit that you made it up (LIED!!!). If so, why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say???
captainwho1 2 years ago
@Captainwho1 - Since the study listed no degrees, I assumed they were students. Grow up. Still avoiding the lack of efficiency when producing electricity NOT from tthe WALL, I see.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
THIS is your problem:
ASSUMPTIONS.
You assume BTU content of bottled hydrogen.
You ASSUME reactivity of a gas is meaningless.
Your assumptions are the reason you have been backed into a corner.
Stop assuming, and get your facts correct.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@ES2008 - My terms for continuing this discussion forward from this point is that you agree to be nicknamed "wormtongue". If you are OK with this we can continue?? You see I don't accept your answer that you assumed they were students since they didn't list their degrees. I have read many trade journal papers and I rarely, if ever have seen degrees mentioned. People of avg IQ would not think that students would be accepted to publish in peer reviewed journals and yours is, what, upper 3%??
captainwho1 2 years ago
@Captainwho1 - My terms are that you address the issue of generating the electricity required to duplicate the Austrailain study from a 32% efficient engine and a 86 percent efficient altenator. Why do you keep damcing around that issue and keep trying to divert from it?
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
WHAT???
Did we catch ES in a LIE?
How many times have you accused me of lying, ES????
And not one single time have I EVER lied, yet you make things up as you go?
How is that fair??????
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Over here: watch%3Fv%3DAvJdnpxKJks I found the following 2 quotes by ES2008:
"They show none of their calculations and frankly, the two students who did these tests are an embarrassment to their professors."
"This study is about as flawed as it gets. ANY real scientist would look at the way they did things and laugh."
I did a little research on Dr. Saiful Bari, one of the 2 authors:
BScEng, MScEng., MSc, PhD. (Reading University, UK), has 48 papers to his name, teaches 6 classes!!!
captainwho1 2 years ago
Way to do your homework!
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@Captainwho1 - I have noticed that you ignored the issue I brought up. The EP-500 power supply will waste 10 percent of the WALL outlet electricity. Yet, to generate that electricity on board, with the same generator they used, will have losses of 68 percent for the engine and 14 percent for the approcimately five 110 amp altenators required. Plus, they did the study at 1500 RPM, 2500 RPM at 60 MPH is more typical, so add 66% to everything they did. Why the silence?
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Why the silence concerning your incorrect statements about the qualifications of the professionals performing the study?
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@EletrikRide - The study paper listed no degrees so I mistakenly thought they were just students. however, to call them professional HHO testers is quite a stretch. Their faulty study proves that.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This is not the first nor the last time you have been in error.
Their study is fault free, unlike your BTU analysis.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
In this study they were feeding the 38KW / 51HP engine a minimum of 25 liters of hydrogen per minute to produce five percent total diesel equivalent. Tell me Smack how many liters per minute does your SMACTANIUM GEN VI put out?
ke4uyp 2 years ago
This study is not about my Gen VI. This study is about the viability of the technology.
Stick to the topic, don't try to undermine my work. You have just been shown proof that HHO is viable. You should concentrate on that, as it destroys your negative stance on the technology.
Not only did they perform this study using a device that is not my design, but they also did it on an engine that my design does not target.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@EletrikRide OK I will stick to the subject they used a 700 pound oxyhydrogen machine consuming 11.5kW/h via 220vAC to produce 25 liters per minute of hydrogen, how is this demonstrating the viability of the technology?
ke4uyp 2 years ago
It either works or does not work - period.
It's doesn't "sort of work", it works. The rest is just technical and design details.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
If the "study' has determined how much diesel they would need to make 11,500 watts on board a vehicle, instead of using eletricity from the WALL, it would be a whole different story. They would have easily proven that HHO is NOT viable.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
That is not what happened.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Great work Smack!! My first install was on a 1800cc Turbo Diesel. I had great results, some of which I have not documented on Youtube, but with a bit of tweaking with the fueling and static timing of the injector pump I was able to achieve over 65mpg everytime, even in town traffic as I was able to lower the engine idle far below 500rpm thanks to the HHO and the few little adjustments I made to the injector pump. Check out my vid's if you get time. Peace.
babyella07 2 years ago
Great job, thanks for sharing your info and keep up the great work!
EletrikRide 2 years ago
What's really funny is ES2008 is now quoting from the study and using it to valid Silverados1500's claims. He writes, "
The Australia study does show that 4.8 to 6.12 percent is the sweet spot for enhancement so Silverados1500's videos seem to be on the money."
watch?v=dibLQq9P55A
He says it flawed but uses the data form it anyway. More twisting numbers B/S. He''s a F'ing loser...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
He is desperate to save face. It's out of my hands now. We as researchers know what we need to do from here.....
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety - It is you that is twisting. I acknowledge that the 2.9% thermal efficiency improvent at 6.06% is possiblbly correct. However, they present no data on the energy input to achieve those results. They simply say 30 LPM
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
The energy required is irrelevant. What is relevant is it was included into the final efficiency calculations. The final efficiency numbers are all that matters and you know this. The efficiency of the cell is not the focus of the paper.
You disagree with the study, make a video and present your points.
You are grasping, desperate to try and undermine this study that destroys your BTU math.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Part 1C
"I acknowledge that the 2.9% thermal efficiency improvent at 6.06% is possiblbly correct."
How can you acknowledge that there is a 2.9% bte improvement AND at the same time claim that your video "Absolute Proof It Is Impossible For HHO To Increase Miles Per Gallon" is the truth? Your whole premise is that, since it takes more energy to create the hydrogen than you can get out of it by burning it in a bomb calorimeter (how LHV of fuels are calc'd), it is impossible to increase the...
captainwho1 2 years ago
Hence the reason for my crowing and posturing. The proof is now here, and it's not just me this time...
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@Captainwho1 - 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
@Captainwho - 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.
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
LOL, that is not what was reported. Your assumptions are not the final word. You have a lot of assumptions there that you cannot verify. Instead of assuming things, you should try to analyze the data as it has been posted.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@Smack 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
the educated professionals here at smack university have once again lorded over your inadequate studies. Each and every one of your followers needs to return to your basic studies to relearn what you thought you knew about combustions and efficiency.
This study supports what I have already taught you, and furthermore proves every statement I have made. Statements I continue to stand behind.
You need to re-evaluate your faulty curriculum.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@Smack 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
Once again, Professor Smack LORDS over your false math.
Your assumptions are based on your faulty understanding of the process. You guess at these figures, and assume worst case scenario to try to support your false math.
Again, the real world tests have been done that conclusively prove the technology I support.
And studies like this one provide scientific data that explain the real world results. with this, you cannot refute or compete.
You have been owned by this thorough research.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@Captainwho1 - HHV and LHV are not calc'd. The calorimeter combustion chamber is surrounded by water. They start the test at 25C. For HHV they wait till the combustion chamber returns to 25C before measuring the water temp. For LHV they wait until the combustion chamber returns to 150C - It is a valid test that all scientists use to measure the energy in a fuel.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
A bomb calorimeter test is not the final word as I have explained to you in excruciating detail. The bomb calorimeter test on covers one small aspect of the entire quality analization of a fuel. I have clearly shown you that the reactivity of the fuel is also a vital parameter.
P=E/T. You cannot refute this. It matters how fast a fuel burns - even more than it's BTU content.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
I have shown you the BMW Hydrogen 7 uses the same amount of BTU to travel 300 miles on hydrogen as it does on gasoline. Your P=E/T means nothing because you do not put any numbers with the formula.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This study proves you are wrong and that I am right.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
I will remind you YET AGAIN - for the "countlessth" time - bottled hydrogen is not the same as hydrogen produced from a cell. I have a study in hand that I will be doing a video on that scientifically PROVES this statement using lab equipment designed for this purpose.
You will be forced to accept that electrolysis hydrogen is superior to bottled hydrogen, just as you are being forced to see the indisputable truth here that HHO injection works.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@EletrikRide HHO is not H2/O2 this test is on H2/O2 not HHO
ke4uyp 2 years ago
You are incorrect. The gas used is from an electrolyzer. although they use the nomenclature H2/O2, it is HHO gas.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
The faster a fuel burns, the more of it you need. For example the DOE says that per cubic foot at 60F, hydrogen gas had 270 BTU and gasoline has 836,000 BTU. HHO is 2/3 hydrogen, so 180 BTU. Adjust for 120F, now only 160.22 BTU. So a cubic foot of gasoline will get you 5213 times further down the road than a cubic foot of HHO.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Your statement is not correct. Not only does math not agree with you, scientific tests also show that you are mistaken. The concept of P = E/T tears apart your entire angle. As I have shown you, a properly tuned engine can and will take full advantage of a faster burning fuel
EletrikRide 2 years ago
are you talking about liquid gasoline or stochiometric fuel/air vapor? Apples and oranges - I missed the distinction
whatthephuque 2 years ago
@Whatthephuque - According to the United States Department of Energy, per cubic foot at 60F, liguid gasoline has 836,000 BTU of energy and hydrogen is gaseous at 60F and only has 270 BTU. HHO only 160.22 BTU at 120F. When people say Apples to oranges, I say, to replace one cubic foot of gasoline, you need to build a 1 foot wide by 1 foot tall by 5218 foot long tank and hook it to the back of your car. It is pretty clear that HHO is an ant fart compared to gasoline.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Again, I point out to you the error of your assumptions. Your math is sadly inadequate as this study clearly shows.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
ES2008 said here in this thread: "The faster a fuel burns, the more of it you need."
That's not true in an ICE. We want to more closely approach what is called "the ideal otto cycle" wherein the combustion process occurs in a near instantaneous amount of time at constant volume. Google it dude, it's never impossible for anyone to learn something, if they want to that is.
captainwho1 2 years ago
"HHV and LHV are not calc'd. The calorimeter combustion chamber is surrounded by water."
How do you think the first person did it? The heat released by the combustion equals the mass of the water x the specific heat capacity of the water x the temperature increase of the water. But this is SAD ES2008, the way you squirm to avoid discussing the specifics of this study. You've been wrong about everything so far, yet you still proceed with bravado. STICK TO THE STUDY.
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 2C
....bte of an ICE by supplementing it's fuel supply in this way! How does a bte improvement NOT equate to a potential for mpg improvement?
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 3C
In addition, do you know what bsfc (brake specific fuel consumption) means? It is the inverse equivalent, effectively, of mpg! You do know that they showed the bsfc improved in this study, right?
captainwho1 2 years ago
Exactly. I'm glad you guys are paying attention :-)
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety you nailed it. That is just too damn funny! The phrase "cherry picker" definitely comes to mind....LOL.
captainwho1 2 years ago
I am waiting for the apologies from all those people who said that HHO is a scam. But I guess those folks are to much ashamed to do that.
Smack, I have watched all your videos from the beginning, and from the first minute I knew that I was watching an honest and sincere man.
You Rock.....and you have proven that you are right from day one, period.
Greets, iT
insAneTunA 2 years ago
Thanks for your support! And don't expect any apologies from these cultists. They are to self absorbed and hateful to ever admit they could be wrong. Their egos will not allow it....
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Either they make apologies to you, or they must write to that university to tell them that they are wrong as well.
They have a choice....am not asking them....
I am DEMANDING them !!!
I already payed a friendly visit to those who made the biggest insults.
insAneTunA 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
Not so fast. The error lies with you. Your assumption is incorrect. The document is clear. You take issue with the wording, bring it up to the writers of the study done.
I have presented the data as published.
EletrikRide 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
Again, you are panicking because this study proves you wrong. I know it must be very hard on your ego since you have put so much time and energy into disproving HHO.
I feel the pain you feel for all your wasted effort. Bad news for you is that this is only one of many published studies I will be posting on.
You take issue with the study, contact the persons who performed it.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Part 2B
OUTPUT POWER = electrical power drawn by the load cell. INPUT POWER = electrical power into electrolyzer + LHV of diesel fuel times the mass flow rate of diesel fuel.
captainwho1 2 years ago
Well said, good chain of posts. I guess I assumed these things were self explanatory, especially for those who normally read carefully and have a reputation for being thorough. It's funny how predispositions can blind people sometimes.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Smack, I or anyone could say the same about you, you sell HHO units so you could be being blinded by predispositions. Later, I will respond to Captainwho1
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
This paper transcends all my predispositions. I did not write it or perform the study. I'm just reporting what I read.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Part 1B
"In addition, they provide ABSOLUTELY NO information on how they made their calculations, regarding the electricity."
How do you think they made them? It isn't rocket science to measure electrical power input to a power supply by multiplying V x A. They were quite clear that when they calculated bte of the system, they included the electrical power to the electrolyzer as an INPUT to the system. You know that bte is calculated by dividing output power by input power, right?
captainwho1 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
Again, I feel your pain. It must be very hard to have your nose rubbed in this after all your hard work.
It was all in vain, so sorry.
You are desperately grasping at straws here over compression ratios and the like.
This study has destroyed your argument.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Es its a diesel. Of course it has high compression. Most people are indeed using low compression gasoline turds. My 12k pound truck gets damn near the same mpg as a corolla. and better than most other 4 cylinder gas cars. the article looks interesting I need to find the time to read it.
All my vehicles are going diesel, last longer., better mpg, cleaner overall and huge variety of alt fuel readily avail.
higherpoweredh2o 2 years ago
BTW, didn't you listen to the video and read the document???? Being the expert you think you are, you should know that a diesel engine has high compression ratios.
Come on man, you are really grasping here.....
EletrikRide 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
Again, a desperate man on a sinking ship. You will grasp at anything to save your skin.
The writing is on the wall.
I have destroyed your BTU argument. You can squirm under the details, but the results are clear. Grab your tissues and wipe away those tears....
EletrikRide 2 years ago
again its a diesel. my truck governs the fuel at 2800 rpm, ( soon to be 3500) so its best torque and efficiency is indeed between 1400 to 1800 rpm. I know it kinda sucks that most of your calcs are for a gas car but you may as well start gearing up for diesel. As soon as the USA gets its head out of its butt we will all be driving diesel like most of the world already does. More power better economy less resources used. Its a win win.
higherpoweredh2o 2 years ago
Diesel is where its at. I want to try and develop a lightweight diesel genset and target big rigs, the lifeblood of our country. We are busy working on getting a big rig truck as a donor for a series EV conversion - similar to a train setup but smaller.
Good to see you posting, BTW
EletrikRide 2 years ago
international and kenworth already are running hybrids on west coast. and ups is working on a really cool hydraulic hybrid. it uses hydraulics for braking and stores pressure in an accumulator then uses stored pressure to move vehicle in stop and go. many different techs starting to catch on.
i bought a yanmar 5500watt to put on my service rig. so tests will follow soon
higherpoweredh2o 2 years ago
So what do you think optimal RPM ranges are for a diesel engine anyway?????
EletrikRide 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
If you take issue with the study, or you have not learned how to read, I suggest you take it up with the authors responsible. They can hold your hand, I will not.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
So nobody supporting HHO thinks these numbers are funky? Page 1, 15.07% savings at 19 kw load with 6.06% HHO - yet the last page says 7.3% savings. They do not even seem to be able to keep their lies straight.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
First I am lying, now they are lying.
ES, you will say anyone and everyone is lying just to preserve your stance. God Himself could speak to you directly and show you it works, and you would claim He is lying too. Whatever dude. You have been served the facts.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Part1A
"They do not even seem to be able to keep their lies straight."
@ES2008 - You wish. You're just digging a bigger hole for yourself. Just admit that this paper proves your overly simplistic approach of BTU calculations of the fuels only applies to bomb calorimeters or explosive devices. That's not what we're doing, we're trying to generate electricity or propel a vehicle down a road.
Read the paper again and don't twist things or take things out of context and misquote them.
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 2A
Hint: the 15.07% refers to the diesel fuel savings alone. The 7.3% savings factors in the diesel fuel equivalencies of all the energy inputs into the system. But with your high IQ you knew that. You're just joshing with us!
captainwho1 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
If you take issue with the study, contact the individuals responsible. I have provided reference information in the sidebar.
I'm so sorry your months of primitive BTU math has been destroyed in one fell swoop.
Take a few weeks to recover, then make your own video to try and convince others that this published scientific study performed by an accredited university is wrong. See, this time its not me you have to argue with.
Reca'nize.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Part 1D
ES2008(aka WT) said here:
"I see no evidence of any peer review."
ES2008(aka WT) said over here watch?v=AvJdnpxKJks :
"The study was published, yes, but peer reviewed? I see no mention of peer review in the study. Just publishing something does not make it true, if it did, all fiction books would be true."
"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."
There you go making...
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 2D
...ASSUMPTIONS again that, conveniently, just happen to suit your agenda. You sure don't go to too much trouble to find out the correct answers to things!!!
Just google "Peer Review Policy Statement for Fuel" and stop LYING (oh right assuming)!!!
captainwho1 2 years ago
Part 3D
Oh and this just in, ES2008 (aka WT) said over here watch?v=z5s8UCmHLcQ :
"It is too bad the Australian study was not peer reviewed, even though Smack claimes it was."
There's too many lies to keep track of, being spread in a troll-like fashion all over youtube. Again, just google "Peer Review Policy Statement for Fuel".
captainwho1 2 years ago
LOL! I hear you, but don't hold your breath! They will never apologize..... But thanks for the support and keep up the great work!
EletrikRide 2 years ago
hahaha .....no I have no illusions....but after all those insulting comments towards people who are doing some modest experiments I think it's good to set things a bit straight . Now their viewers can read the truth. Although you will always have some weird fanatics left who can't handle the truth, like EnergySupply2008, indeed he should write to the Australian research team. It is weird and not done, to attack a reader from an officially published scientific paper.
But not unexpected
insAneTunA 2 years ago
Excellent Review!!!
jakerwall 2 years ago
Thanks Jake, after seeing your video on the subject, I saw the importance of getting the information out there to the public to raise awareness.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
There is an error in that report. It says they used 24 volts but the Epoch EP-500 uses either 220 V or 380 V with 11500 watts consumption., according to the Epoch web site.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
That is not an error. I suggest you contact the 2 individuals who conducted the study to clear this up for you.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Just because you say there is no error does not make it true. Clearly, the Epoch web site says 220/380 volts and 11500 watts.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
You take issue with the study, contact the individuals responsible.
I have presented the data as published.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
How many Liters/minute of HHO are required to produce 4.84% of total diesel equivalent as used in the test?
How much power is required to produce the required HHO?
Boyntonstu 2 years ago
Please see the supporting documentation
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@EletrikRide Bottom line.
Can your latest Electrolyzer produce 4.84% of total Diesel equivalent?
Boyntonstu 2 years ago 2
Bottom line, that is irrelevant. Listen to the video.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
The dynamometer reference of 2 kg and 10 kg was to a guy named Forson who did a study on using jatropha oil to try to increase MPG.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
If you have an issue with the study performed, I suggest you contact the individuals who conducted it. The contact information is clearly posted here.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Bottom line, whether or not your electrolyzer can make the 4.84 percent is irrelevant because this study is extremely skewed and faulty.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Bottom line, this study tears your faulty BTU calcs to shreds. HHO injection works. All of your points of contention are just dust in the wind. You wanted proof, here it is.
You reject the proof, that is your issue, not mine. You take issues with the study, contact the individuals responsible. I'm just presenting the data as published.
Reca'nize.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
Smack - All they gave us was words, no numbers showing how they calculated energy consumption of the external HHO machine running on 220/380 volts. Most commercial machines operate at about 4 MMW to avoid heat and steam. At 30 LPM we know they were using about 7500 watts so all they needed to do was put five 110 amp altenators on the engine and see what happened.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
It doesn't matter. All that matters is the final efficiency numbers. You know I'm right. All power factors were included in the final efficiency calculation.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@EnergySupply2008
Put your money where your mouth is. Show me the letter that you write to the research team in Australia who wrote the paper.
Do publish an official paper with prove from your claims..... I dare you to go fight the claims from the Australian university with them. If you don't write to them then shut up man.
Your wasting energy, your inefficient !!!
insAneTunA 2 years ago
@Boyntonstu - Gallon of diesel = 135.52 Mega Joules of energy. 60 MPH at 30 MPG uses 2 gallons per hour = 0.0333 gallon per minute. 135.52 X 0.0333 = 4.517 MJ per minute. 4.84% of that = 0.218639 MJ per minute requirement.
The above is all based on the Lower heating value of diesel. My video used higher heating value. In the comments I converted to LHV. HHO at 120F = 0.00611 MJ per liter. Therefore, need 35.8 LPM. Smack's cell does 0.5 LPM at 10 amps. Only 1.4% of the requirement.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
Your math is wrong as I have explained and demonstrated and proven here very clearly.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
ES2008, two 12 year olds have a bicycle race. They are both equally physically fit and both have the same energy.
Rider A strongly applies downward pressure on the peddles as they are 45 degrees after top dead center. Rider B strongly applies downward pressure when the peddle is at top dead center.
Which rider wins the race and which rider is more fatiqued?
What have you learned from this demonstration? Does increased efficiency mean more useful power from the same energy?
jjenson2006 2 years ago
@jjenson2006 - As my video points out, at 60 MPH in a 24 MPG vehicle, 3.05 LPM of HHO only provides 0.41 percent of the energy required. Thus, we are still running on 99.59 percent gasoline and carrying a 695 pound Epoch EP-500 adds weight that imposes a MPG penality and it runs on 220/380 volts so the 30 mile extension cord is a big problem to solve. LOL
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
1. Your video is wrong.
2. The Epoch is not the only water electrolyser unit ever designed in history.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@Eletrikride - Your titanium cell you rate at 0.5 LPM at 10 amps = 138 watts. How will you feed it 11500 watts like the Epoch EP-500uses?
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
In no way am I trying to compare the Epoch to my cell. The point of this presentation is to demonstrate that the technology works. The rest is just technical details.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
"As my video points out, at 60 MPH in a 24 MPG vehicle, 3.05 LPM of HHO only provides 0.41 percent of the energy required."
Where did you get this "fact" that defines how much energy is required by HHO to allow an increase in mileage on all engines?
The EP-500 has a huge transformer in it; that accounts for most of its weight and it's only required to reduce the amplitude of the A/C input. Power can get gotten from an alternator which does not need a tranformer.
jjenson2006 2 years ago
It's just another gross assumption he has made to support his failing argument.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@jjenson2006 - The rider who tries to apply pressure at top dead center risks breaking his leg as the damn pedal does not want to move. My contention is that the reason they showed increased efficiency is because their power input numbers were too low and would have been much higher if they had not used eletricity from the WALL.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
LAME.
Break a leg? where did you learn to ride a bike?
JJ made an excellent analogy and you completely avoided it.
EletrikRide 2 years ago
@Eletrikride - What you and JJ avoid talking about is the electricity from the WALL in the Australian study that only has losses of 10% to the power supply, in the form of heat. While on board the losses are 68 percent for the engine and 14% for the altenator to generate the same amount of electricity.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
READ THE STUDY
EletrikRide 2 years ago
"The rider who tries to apply pressure at top dead center risks breaking his leg as the damn pedal does not want to move."
Well then please acknowledge that if the efficiency of the burn is increased; thus allowing the timing to be slightly retarded, the SAME energy can do MORE work.
It seems any time anyone brings up burn efficiency (which has nothing to do with adding more energy), you always go to your "You can't get more energy out than you put in" rant.
jjenson2006 2 years ago
To say that it is impossible to increase mileage without adding more energy is like deciding which olympic runner will win the race, based on who has the most energetic legs.
It's not how much energy is used, it is how that energy is used.
I don't know if HHO boosts mileage, because I haven't actually experimented with it. When you actually experiment with it, you will have the respect of others that want the truth from hard data.
jjenson2006 2 years ago