ABSOLUTE PROOF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HHO TO INCREASE MILES PER GALLON

[JETTXEL]

Is it possible, by use of catalysts, resonance, and other methods, to increase the production of HHO gas using less energy? Many, if not all, of the HHO generators are using some type of electrolytic mixture which may make the HHO production more efficient. I am certianly no chemist, and I agree with your assessment, but it may be that there are some components that should be considered in your equations, as you are assuming absolutely pure water, which we know is typically not what is used...

[EnergySupply2008]

@JETTXEL They use distilled water to not gum up the plates, but distilled water will not conduct electricity, so they add electrolytic substances.

[k0nn0r]

Great video, but you could have done it much simpler. All this talk about the ideal gas law is unncessary, all you need to show is that you can at best break even. How much energy does it consume to dissociate one mole of water, how much energy does that yield in a combustion? Where are the losses along the way.. bam, you end up with less. I think all the numbers are more confusing than anything else. But good video.

[chp656]

A nice contribution to the Truth and Normality.Good for you!

[MrWirelesscaller]

Bravo and thank you for the video. Entropy on a self contained chassis is by commonsense an automatic failure. Even if the auto makers and oil companies are in collusion your power companies aren't and if they could produce electricity cheaper or free to lower their expense of operation they would do it to make more money off of us.

[roofy2k]

thank you for posting this video, it's a tough one to crack for a lot of people because they think they're producing energy which everyone wants to do but just cant

[EnergySupply2008]

@roofy2k Exactly, energy cannot be produced, only changed from one form to another, but always with efficiency losses.

[tnlightnin]

@EnergySupply2008 Apparently fear of posted comments? We have to have approval? Does anyone know which oil company Energysupply2008 is working for? This video was a lot of trouble to create for zero gain. And biased by judging HHO alone without the benefits it provides when combined with other fuels. Nor does he consider the alternator output and drag as part of the equation. Many alternators produce far more than the vehicles require. Nothing is ever proven by leaving out facts.

[EnergySupply2008]

@tnlightnin The law of conservation of energy means you can never get out more energy than you put in. The extra load on the alternator to run the HHO devive causes the engine to have to work harder, which means more fuel consumption. Because it takes more energy to make the HHO than you get from burning it, it is an energy loser.

[crazybiker420]

So how does hho mixed with gas react? Does that extra 2000 degrees make a difference? (2000 is a guess)

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 HHO might burn at 2000 degrees, but a couple liters/minute cannot contribute a significant amount of BTU's. Vehicles have such huge requirements. Google "energy density" The first link is Wikipedia. The table shows gaseous hydrogen has 0.01079 MJ of energy per liter. HHO is 2/3 hydrogen so it has 0.007193 MJ per liter. Gasoline has 34.2 MJ of energy per liter. So a liter of gasoline has 4,755 times more energy than HHO. Need huge quanties of HHO to make a difference.

[crazybiker420]

Avoided question. Gas burns at 65% efficiency? And does that go up when you add hho? Does your headlights take more gas? Because my system uses about that much power.

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 Professor John Heywood of MIT is an expert in the internal combustion engine. He says that computer controlled vehicles deliver the correct amount of fuel so precisely that at least 98 percent of the gasoline is burned.

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 Generally speaking, 34 percent of the heat goes to the cooling system, 36 percent out the exhaust and 6 percent to the surrounding air around the engine. Making for about 24 percent engine efficiency. But that is not the fault of the gasoline, it is just that it takes huge amounts of heat to move a vehicle at a decent speed.

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 Yes, headlights, or anything electrical, increases fuel consumption. The battery gets drained, a 50-60 percent efficient alternator driven by a 24 percent efficient engine has to replenish that energy in the battery so more fuel is consumed.

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 2 headlights consume about 165 watts. An HHO cell at 6.1 milliliters per minute per watt produces 1007 milliliters per minute, or just over one liter. A cubic foot of hydrogen at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, has 270 BTU. HHO is only 2/3 hydrogen so 180 BTU. Because the cell temp is about 120F the HHO expands and is more like 161 BTU per cubic foot. A CF is 28.382 liters. So a liter of HHO has 5.672 BTU. At 25 MPG at 60 MPH, we consume 2.4 gallons per hour or 268,217 BTU per hour - CONT

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 Which is 4,470 BTU per minute The HHO provide only 5.672 BTU per minute which is only 0.1247 percent of the requirement. Plus, it takes more energy to make the HHO than it gives back to the engine, because the engine only turns 24 percent of the energy into mechanical energy and then the alternator wastes 40 to 50 percent turning mechanical energy into electrical energy and the cell itself is less than 100 percent efficient, so anyway you slice it, HHO hurts miles per gallon.

[crazybiker420]

Way to avoid the question. You said that in the video and in the discription and in some other comments.

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 What question did I avoid?

[crazybiker420]

You forgot to mention so much stuff. Numbers don't prove anything. Bring actual chemistry tests and videos and let's see these "tests" you have done. I read one of your comments you said you didn't ever try! I don't have any solid proof that it works but I do have proof that it doesn't take away mpg. I can't believe I waited through this whole video to here you babble on about stuff I already knew. Answer this. How much energy does hho and gas have mixed? When the burn rate is upped from 65% to

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 In the video below, ZeroFossilFuel fed 30 amps to his cell. On this tiny 3 HP engine, it reduced the run time from 11:40 to 10:49 - 51 seconds less run time on 11:40 means he increased fuel consumption with HHO by 7.28 percent. Now, that is with a 3 HP engine. At 60 MPH most vehicles require 21 to 42 HP. 7 to 14 times as much. The 30 amps could not get a gain even on a tiny 3 HP engine. On a car, it is totally impossible.

watch?v=zwqisOfTw0E

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 In other words, even at 150 to 300 amps, a vehicle requiring 21 to 42 HP at 60 MPH would use MORE gasoline with HHO than without.

[EnergySupply2008]

@crazybiker420 To really understand why HHO is an ant fart compared to how much energy a vehicle uses, pay attention to all the math in this video.

watch?v=zy1GdP4GYkM

[terrymorse]

Theoretical Carnot efficiency for a diesel/HHO mixture by HHO energy content:

HHO Carnot Efficiency

0% 84.6%

1% 84.7%

5% 84.9%

10% 85.1%

25% 85.8%

Conclusion: You need al lot of HHO to make a practical difference in engine efficiency. The idea that an HHO device running off the engine can produce enough HHO to improve gas mileage: busted!

[FreeEnergyNow1]

HHo is a waste of energy, it won't improve your mileage, but it will take your money!

Just another scam that people want to sell you.

[bennett20200]

You totally missed the point of HHO. You have not done your correct research . HHO acts as a booster to the gas in your engine. About 75% (look it up) of energy is wasted when normal gas burns to heat and other factors. That leaves 25% efficiency. HHO Combines with the gas to help it burn more completely, giving you better milage. What you guys are thinking of is using HHO as straight fuel, not a chemical booster for gasoline/diesel. So both sides are correct, your just arguing different points!

[EnergySupply2008]

@bennett20200 No, you missed the point. The numbers show that HHO wastes energy by loading the engine and the alternator. Using that energy to create HHO is a net loss.

[getreal155]

Lots of facts but I'm sorry to tell you that your conclusions are totaly wrong. Your so busy proving that it isn't possible that you completely missed the point. You MIGHT be correct when an engine would be running on HHO only but this isn't the case here.

By adding a very small amount of HHO you drastically increase the efficiency of the gasoline or diesel burning engine.

This is basically THE point you are missing completely.

[EnergySupply2008]

@getreal155

You need to read my two posts to Yourfishman to understand why HHO cannot do what you think it can.

[a1mint]

@getreal155 There is no credible evidence that a diesel engine's efficiency is drastically improved. There is one "study" made that shows a moderate increase on OLDER diesel engines, and that study is not properly scientifically done. It did not attract any attention from any actual scientific bodies.

[uraldneprvw]

@getreal I ran my car with 3 HHO generators for 9 months+ covered 11000 miles My mpg did not increase in the slightest. HHO is undoubtedly explosive but in the very small amounts produced to the amount of air sucked in, it makes absolutely no difference.The alternator is a huge parasite of power when running the units. My units produces 3 ccs of HHO per second (and that's a lot) my car at 2000 rpm sucks in 20 litres a second. 0.015% of HHO in air does nothing. I know, I have tried it. Have you?

[FreeEnergyNow1]

@getreal155

I would love to challege you theory's, In fact its time to bring the scam out in the open...

HHO takes more power then it can produce. HHO also burns at a rate of 4400ms, this burns too fast for any IC engine to run efficient. Also when making HHO you will have heat loss from the electrolysis of water.

[87sjm]

The person that is closest to being right is jupy921

[EnergySupply2008]

@87sjm

You wrote:

"The person that is closest to being right is jupy921"

Apparently you have not seen this Jupy921 video in which he clearly states that using HHO to increase miles per gallon is total bullshit.

watch?v=AvJdnpxKJks

[87sjm]

This video only proves how little you know about HHO (browns gas) there is a lot more to it than what you can see going on. Oh and another thing we are displacing the amount of gasoline the ICU uses and in doing so the hho gas reacts with the gasoline and increases the rate at witch the gasoline combusts, Thus a small increase of power and lower emissions and the offset of gasoline used per mile (stroke).

[EnergySupply2008]

@87sjm

See my two posts to Yourfishman to understand why HHO is an ant fart, compared to the energy needs of an automobile.

[a1mint]

@87sjm

1) over 99% of gasoline is already used, so there are no gains from attempting to burn more. There isn't any more to burn.

2) gas is exploded early to maximize the time of it pushing against the cylinder. There isn't much to optimize here.

3) There is no credible evidence that injecting HHO has a worthwhile effect on the output of a gasoline engine.

You've got nothing to go on, but assumptions made from shady unscientific information and fairy tales.

[overunitydotcom]

Your explanations are totally wrong, cause the formulas for oxyhydrogen burning

to produce heat are not applicable in an explosion chamber process...

There is more mechanical

energy produced there, therefore the energy output is higher in such an combustion process. YOu can not just copmpare it to just burn hho. It is different in an explosion process as in an IC engine !

ALso you just increase the efficiency from the gasoline fuel this way.

Regards, Stefan.

[EnergySupply2008]

@overunitydotcom

Here is a video that will prove that all that you said is wrong.

watch?v=zy1GdP4GYkM

[AneikwSeMena]

@overunitydotcom explosion in the chamber is not oxyhydrogen burning?using an hho generator you turn air into fuel as well as it became a mixture of air and oxyhydrogen.the maths is right..oxyhydrogen cannot trn your 95 octane diesel to a nuclear reactor... it actually makes no effect to the combustion process. gas burns and additional oxyhydrogen burns next to it. but as already mentioned in the video,output power is much less than input. (at least using electrolysis).

[frank0067]

dude your thinking is wrong..

#1. just because people make profit on an item, dont mean their motive is bad.. good item = good profit.

#2 the engine of the car or the current gas used,has no effect on the creation of HHo the alternator is already producing over 12V to complement the vehicles demands electrically which most are not in use at a given time. Oh ya BTW.. Japan is already selling complete HHO water fueled cars... OWCH ( Ya said folks should go to jail for their hho creationshuh?

[EnergySupply2008]

@frank0067

See my post to luispedra to see why you are wrong about the alternator. That car from japan was already proved to be a hoax, a long time ago.

[a1mint]

@frank0067 Can I see evidence of "complete HHO water fueled cars" being sold in Japan? Surely you have a link or two?

[metallica71787]

Your video only validates your claim to the confining law of thermodynamics. However there is scads of evidence to the contrary provided in numerous documents provided by NASA.

[EnergySupply2008]

@metallica71787

See my post to Yourfishman to understand why you are wrong.

[scum525]

i think this guy works for the oil company. how much energy was used to find, extract and process the crude oil and then distribute and sell it to you at the gas station. hho is a fuel and should be persued as a clean and safe alternative it's environmental benefits speak for themselves . make your hho with solar with wind and any method you can use wind, solar,waterwheel and battery power to compress it and burn it in you diesel gas or modified combustion engine keep the dream alive

[EnergySupply2008]

@scum525

What part of requiring 1.8 MJ of energy to make 1.322 MJ worth of HHO did you not understand? An IC engine is about 24 percent efficient. An electric motor about 85-90 percent efficient. Why would anyone use expensive solar panels to make inefficient HHO to feed it to an inefficient IC engine? Please think before posting.

[a1mint]

@scum525 It would be nice if it were feasible to generate HHO gas at home using wind and solar energy, compress it, heat your house with it, run your car with it.

But the problem is that todays cars need so much energy it just really isn't funny.

Heating a house uses a ridiculous amount of energy, but efficiency can be increased (dramatically) by doing everything right, including panels on the roof.

As for cars, petrol is cheap energy that's impossible to compete with in todays world.

[midian1138]

@a1mint so how long have you worked in the oil business??

[Yourfishman]

This is a silly video. Yes it is accurate, and yes it is factual. But it totally misses how fuel, or modified fuel, can minimize waste.

It has very little to do with energy. Its all about WASTED energy. You have to first understand Thermal efficiency of the Internal Combustion Engine. The Thermal Efficiency of a ICE is about 25%, So you have 75% wasted TE to minimize.

HHO boosting CAN minimize wasted energy. The only question is weather it is worth the hassle & money to do it right.

[EnergySupply2008]

@Yourfishman

As my video shows, 3.05 liters of HHO per minute only provides 0.021672 Mega Joules of energy per minute. NASA got a 6.38 percent improvement by feeding 635 grams of hydrogen per hour or 10.583 grams per minute = 1.513 Mega Joules per minute. 69.81 times more energy. Also, as my video points out, it takes 1.8 MJ of energy to make 1.322 MJ worth of HHO.

HHO energy sapping CANNOT ever boost MPG.

[EnergySupply2008]

@Yourfishman

Even people using a lowly 3 HP engine, hooked directly to an alternator, running an HHO cell at 30 amps, off the alternator, cannot get a gain. Many have tried and failed. Applying the same 30 amps to the energy demands of an automobile, is a total joke. People need to go back to school, if they think HHO is viable.

[Farzan36]

i love your voice

[mikem720]

@EnergySupply2008

Of course it takes more energy to generate HHO then the HHO could provide into the SYSTEM.

An auto engine as a SYSTEM produces EXTRA energy. This is why a turbo charger is said to "work".

Like-wise, the alternator produces MORE energy then the cars electrical system uses. If it were not so, your battery would eventually die from running the radio.

In THEORY, HHO could be generated from the extra energy that the alternator provides which could be used to boost MPG.

[EnergySupply2008]

@mikem720

A turbo charger spins by using wasted energy in the form of exhaust gases, so you are wrong. Wrong about the alternator too. Read my response to luispedra to find out why you are wrong. In summary, you are wrong about everything you said, except"

"Of course it takes more energy to generate HHO then the HHO could provide into the SYSTEM"

[a1mint]

@mikem720 The laws of nature state that you can not create or destroy energy. You can only convert it. Each time you convert it, you lose in the form of heat.

Every bit of electric energy you take from the alternator, makes the alternator that much harder to turn, which adds to the load on the engine, making it use more fuel to make that energy.

So there is no "extra energy". There is no excess energy. It does not and can not exist, period.

[agrajag46]

It's so nice that someone shows a factual and scientifically accurate explanation of how the HHO improved mileage claims are based in fraud.

Unfortunately, they'll always be a segment of the population that clings to a fantasy belief system regardless of sound evidence

[weeeendog]

This presentation is correct. What we need is for citizens to understand physics a little better. Then they would respect energy for what it really is, and not be such careless wasteful imbeciles.

[devinmccloud]

Finally some common sense!

[ZOGOVP]

Gasoline may produce more power but wait now.... I did not hear you mention that approximately 65% of that gas is wasted. Also what if solar energy is used? All your mathemagician ( yes I spelled it right) is a waste of our time. You also failed to explain how the hydrogen cleans the engine and helps to increase HP. also that 100% of the Hydrogen is burned. Your math may be right but I'm still going to waste my time making this device. :)

[EnergySupply2008]

@ZOGOVP

According to John Heywood of MIT, the foremost expert on Internal Combustion engines, today's cars burn at least 98 percent of the gasoline. Gasoline has so much energy, (4734 times more than HHO) that 36 percent of the heat goes to the cooling system, 34 percent out the exhaust and 6 percent to the surrounding air. Leaving 24 percent to do useful work. It is not that the heat is wasted, it is just the natural result of the huge energy demands to move a heavy vehicle at decent speed.

[EnergySupply2008]

@ZOGOVP

Electric cars are in the order of 85 to 90 percent efficient, so in buying expensive solar panels, anyone is far better off using them to power an electric vehicle, instead of powering a 60 percent efficient HHO device and then feeding that result into a 24 percent efficient IC engine.

[marine203m16]

congrats you know how to read into a microphone but how can you prove it does not work other the talking about what you dont know just like every other skeptic you talk a lot and try to confuse people one other question have you ever heard of a man named stanly meyers

[EnergySupply2008]

@marine203m16

I researched Stanly Meyers extensively. He was ordered by a court to repay his investors and charged with fraud.

[helicrashpro]

Funny how you compared hydrogen gas to gasoline and not hydrogen and oxygen gas. So you comparison numbers mean nothing in terms of what hydrogen/oxygen gas has for energy. That is like using just carbon energy to define the energy in gasoline. That obviously does not define the energy in gasoline. The other thing you conveniently did not mention is what mixture of gasoline you are using to base your values. Gasoline is a mixture of different hydrocarbons. What mixture are you using? Race gas?

[EnergySupply2008]

@helicrashpro

When scientists use a bomb calorimeter to determine the energy in hydrogen or any fuel, they mix it with the precise amount of oxygen needed for complete combustion, so the amount of energy in hydrogen is all that matters. The energy values in the video are based on standard pump gasoline. Racing gasoline has octane added to it to raise the temperature at which engine knock happens, to prevent high compression race engines from self destructing. Octane is not a measure of energy.

[Tropicous]

All gobolygook to me! What are you saying? if it does not Increase MPG what does it do in an exploding area, between the the spark plug and piston?

[EnergySupply2008]

@Tropicous

If you take the time to understand the video then you would see that the amount of energy the alternator uses to produce the HHO is more than the HHO contains, therefore it is impossible for HHO to increase miles per gallon.

[QU47R3]

Good science, let no one with out knowledge of chemistry post here

[EnergySupply2008]

@QU47R3

I know what you mean. Only people without knowledge of chemistry could ever believe that HHO can increase miles per gallon.

[popularluser]

if an engineer would redesign a car to incorporate some some sort of wind mill in place of radiator to produce electricity to power a small internal combustion engine on hho to power an electrictal generator to run an electric vehical, would this not be better for the country in 2 ways, 1 dependence on forein oil, 2 air pollution.

[EnergySupply2008]

@popularluser

That has been looked at before. The wind drag the windmill would cause on the vehicle would require more energy than the windmill could produce. There is no such thing as free energy. Scientists have proved this over and over.

[popularluser]

Hello EnergySupply2008 I have only recentlly discovered the HHO concept. However from all the utube vids and web sites I have seen I think there are other ways to explore this.

One individual claims by accident he put ac power into his electrilizer and got more production than Faraday's law. Is it not true that if you could run an engine off 100% hho there would be ZERO emissions?, even if it required more battery electricity would this not be a step in the right direction.

[EnergySupply2008]

@popularluser

As I stated in my video, in 175 years, no scientist has ever proven Faraday wrong. Back yard mechanics posting on Youtube are not scientists and just want to sell you something. As my video points out, HHO uses more energy than it produces, therefore it does not make sense to even use it for increased MPG, never mind 100 percent HHO.

[EnergySupply2008]

@popularluser

My video shows that 500 watts worth of HHO yields 0.41 percent of the energy needed for a 24.1 MPG vehicle. That means you would need 121951 watts to produce enough for 100 percent, an obvious impossibility. Since electric motors are about 91 percent efficient and HHO devices are 50 percent efficient at best, it makes more sense to forget internal combustion engines for saving energy. However, electricity from the power plant not used immediately cannot be stored.

[terryblount163]

I've been experimenting with HHO for 5 years & agree with you 99.9% on your views regarding the energy required to produce a usable amount of HHO.Initially I started my quest for this "super" gas with tunnel vision,believing that it was the answer to achieving a cheaper way to run my car,a 3ltr Volvo.I built wet & dry cells,PWMs & MAF enhancers,all installed to run automatically via a series of relays & monitored by a digital ammeter & shunt.The result was less than 1 mpg at 25amps,more to come

[EnergySupply2008]

@terryblount163

The 1 MPG increase is an measurement error. Doing precisely 60 MPH with cruise control, I got 37.8 percent better MPG going north than south, on the same stretch of highway. The reason is because north had more downhill grades. Varying road grades make it impossible to measure fuel consumption accurately. So the EPA uses a dyno. It is impossible for HHO to improve MPG, my video proves it.

[terryblount163]

@EnergySupply2008 Inspite of a minor spelling mistake,I agree with your comments,for the non- technical minded,briefly,the amount of energy required to produce HHD is greater than any benefits obtained.The only advantage of adding this gas as a suppliment,is it gives a cleaner burn.The reward does not justify the effort.

[metallica71787]

@EnergySupply2008 Is it important to conduct  a proper test. Comparing a single round trip with the system ON on one leg and OFF on the other is not a good test.

[EnergySupply2008]

@metallica71787

You misunderstood me, I was illustrating that many people do not test properly, due to varying road grades. My test was without HHO because I never built a unit because I already know it is impossible for it to increase MPG.

[slizzardman]

The theory behind HHO is not to replace gasoline. It never has been. The idea is that the hydrogen combines with the gasoline to provide more complete combustion, an idea you have not even brushed on. HHO is simply used to access more of the stored energy inside the gasoline.

The concept put forth in this video would mean that nitrous gas can't increase power either, since it has a similar function, yet it does. Nitrous is corrosive so it's not suitable for long-term use. HHO is not corrosive.

[EnergySupply2008]

@slizzardman

When Dateline NBC did there report on HHO, the EPA certified lab said the device lowered miles per gallon by about 1.3 percent. The reason for this is contained in my video. It is because you cannot get more energy out than in, EVER. The laws of physics do not allow it.

[EnergySupply2008]

@slizzardman

Nitrous oxide does NOT increase power by itself. It injects more oxygen so that MORE fuel can be fed to the engine, NOT less fuel. Air only has 21 percent oxygen, but with nitrous oxide, up to 33 percent oxygen delivery to the engine can be achieved.

[TheBillythekid2010]

HHO is a mixture to add to gas. It slows down the use of gas, buy using a mapping device to lean out the motor.. You make it sound like its the soul source of fuel, to run your car.

[EnergySupply2008]

@TheBillythekid2010

As my video shows, 3.05 liters per minute only provides 4.1 TENTHS of one percent for a 24.1 MPG vehicle at 60 MPH. The supposed gain is offset by the increased load on the alternator. HHO can only result in LESS miles per gallon, NOT more.

[elementalgadgets]

Still blocking comments from anyone who doesn't agree with you? You did a while back. Your video has a serious flaw with your initial unit of measurement. People will believe you because they can't refute your claim, but I do not, because I can.

[EnergySupply2008]

@elementalgadgets

You need to watch my video titled:

MORE PROOF THAT HHO IS A SCAM - It will show you why HHO is absolutely a scam.

[thundercomputer]

"how much energy does each liter of oxyhydrogen contain and how does it compare to gasonline?"

--you are comparing a liquid to a gas using liters. try comparing by weight?

--how much energy does one liter of gasoline comtain when in it's gas state?

[EnergySupply2008]

@thundercomputer

Of course I am comparing a liquid to a gas. The point is that gasoline has 4734 times more energy per liter than HHO. At 2.5 gallons requirement per hour at 60 MPH, we need 9.4635 liters of gasoline or 44,800 liters of HHO. That is 747 liters per minute. 3 liters per minute is only 0.40 percent of the requirement, but since energy from the engine powers the alternator, and an alternator is at best 50-68 percent efficient, there is a loss, not a gain.

[badbarada]

"The law of conservation of energy"

Damn i knew it LOL . Thanks a TON. I feel a stupid now. Thanks for NBC Dateline HHO scam video. It's clear now. BIG SCAM...

Hope everyone checks out your video before buying HHO system or trying to spend money to find out.

Great Video

[badbarada]

The only thing that MADE me try it is that i knew the alternator provides more energy that car/engine actually uses so i thought maybe there was some energy just being thrown away but i wasn't sure so i tried. Some people claim that extra energy the alternator provides is just enough to run HHO system. I'm confused and don't want to waste money on trying to find out LOL :D

[EnergySupply2008]

@badbarada

When the battery is up to full charge, the voltage regulator senses it and turns off the flow of energy to the alternator windings. Thus, the alternator takes almost no energy to spin at that point, only bearing friction. The HHO device keeps the battery in a constant state of discharge, so it puts drag on the alternator and therefore the engine. No energy from the alternator is ever going to waste under normal circumstances

[badbarada]

@EnergySupply2008

You are 1000000% right.

it's just simple physics. I've tried it but never believed this from very first second i heard about this idea.

So what i figured that i've burned more fuel in order to provide DC current from battery to HHO system to make it work LOL

I'm sure that you will spend 20% more fuel to make this HHO system run.

It's like putting extra 200-300 lb on your car.

If you want you can install solar panels on your car and then connect it to HHO system. LOL:D

[EnergySupply2008]

@badbarada

NBC Dateline did a show on HHO devices. Their EPA certified tests showed that with the device switch turned on, the MPG went down by 1.34 percent. No such thing as free energy.

[Careica]

Talking about ZeroFossilFuel. Two years ago I was exited about this HHO thing and I actualy made videos myself and they are still on my channel. But I did subscribe to that guy ZeroFF and since he started making those HHO experiments I noticed he has ADs in his videos and he turned out to be same like everybody other who sell their fake products. I unsubscribet because it became full of bullshit!

[agrajag46]

@Careica LOL...I was banned from his threads because I called him out on his PWM device that he was trying to peddle for several hundred dollars. It could be duplicated for a few dollars. What a scam!

[noath5776]

I checked your facts they are essentially correct, however you are forgetting the fact that you are still using gas. HHo gas is mixed with the air intake none of that was taken into account. And the fact that vehicle alternators produce far more energy then is needed= increased fuel efficiency. I love how the debunker's dont consider all the facts, just the facts that suit them. I'm sorry if you gave up because your short sighted.

[EnergySupply2008]

@noath5776

Sorry, but you are wrong. Read my response to luispedra to find out why you are wrong.

[luispedra]

ok, but whem the motor of the car is working, the energy generated by the "dynamo"of the car is being used to recharge the battery and some other electric car components but a lot is being wasted, so if you put it to generate HHO it can only help increasing the cars mpg...

Its like having a fuel generator and no electric equipment on, it still produces energy and it still whats gas, the difference is that you are not making use of it!

[EnergySupply2008]

@luispedra

Wrong. The voltage regulator controls the field current applied to the spinning rotor inside the alternator. When battery voltage drops below 13.5 volts, the regulator will apply current to the field and the alternator will start charging. When the battery voltage exceeds 14.5 volts, the regulator will stop supplying voltage to the field and the alternator will stop charging. When the alternator stops charging, the load on the engine drops to almost zero. No excess energy here.

[superfishle]

Anyone considered living closer to where they want to be? Walking is a fairly efficient way to turn limited resources into locomotive motion. :-) [jk]

[MrRapsahaybu]

you're right.. i've even rigged an electric motor to run a 24 volt and 12 volt alternator on my stainless/ copper/ stainless 1 liter/per min hho gizmo while feeding it on a car... i always ended up with a burnt pocket and ac motors.. never got pos. results.. i've junked the project 2 years ago !!

[3091752]

i totally agree and thank u for the video

the only true way to actually use hydrogen gas is the kit sold in unitednuclear@com @=.

where you produce hydrogen gas at home which takes time and you have to hook up the system to a 110 v outlet & or also renewable but the main idea is that you cant produce this in your car clearly the laws of thermodynamicsdo not allow this to happen so thanks energysupply2008

[EnergySupply2008]

Bob Lazar of United Nuclear states that the hydride material needed to store the hydrogen compactly is unattainable because it requires access to materials used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons and is strictly prohibited. At best, producing hydrogen from electrolysis is 59.35% efficient and that is only if you can achieve 100% Faraday electrolysis efficiency. We are much better off using the electricity with electric cars at 85% efficiency than IC engines at 20-25% efficiency.

[3091752]

i understand what you mean by efficiency but as a personal taste i prefer the IC engine over electric. first its price second that we can still travel farther on an IC than an electric car (for

[EnergySupply2008]

Price is a factor. The Tesla Roadster is $12500 if I remember correctly. It uses something like 6800 tiny lithium Ion batteries for supposedly 220 miles if I remember correctly. Not too bad, but still expensive at $30000 for a battery pack replacement.

[EnergySupply2008]

Whoops, I made a mistake, the Tesla Roadster is not 12500 - I meant 125,000

[badbarada]

@EnergySupply2008

You are 1000000% right.

it's just simple physics. I've tried it but never believed this from very first second i heard about this idea.

So what i figured that i've burned more fuel in order to provide DC current from battery to HHO system to make it work LOL

I'm sure that you will spend 20% more fuel to make this HHO system run.

It's like putting extra 200-300 lb on your car.

If you want you can install solar panels on your car and then connect it to HHO system. LOL:D

[3091752]

Now)and third when it comes to power the electric is limited by the amount it can pull from the batteries at a moment given(hopefully advances in capacitors could help or replace the battery heck we don`t no there is still theprobability of the eestory)and well i know electric cars are the future most probably, i like the feel of the IC engine(don`t get me wrong do i still want us moving toward

[3091752]

sustainability) .I thank you again for such a great video since i was doing some research myself and had ended up in the same conclusion now moving forward to unitednuclear i think you should pay a visit to their website it seems that once their sales are up their are going to ramp up production.

P.S. priuses the most advance hybrid is ugly and all electrics still cost tooooooo much

[EnergySupply2008]

I still see problems with on board storage regarding United Nuclear. Also, I do not really think electric or hydrogen are answers, because both require burning more coal at the power plants and it is a extremely dirty fuel and still relies on fossil fuels, and yes, they desperately need to put a really sweet body on the Prius, what were they thinking? Solar just won't hack it for making hydrogen, better to use it with electric vehicles. Maybe somewhat doable.

[EnergySupply2008]

NASA part 3

MJ per liter. Hydrogens LHV is 15.45% less than its HHV = 0.00611 MJ per liter. A 24 MPG vehicle needs 5.0525 MJ per minute. If we want to achieve NASAs 10 percent, we need 0.50525 MJ per minute from HHO. At 0.00611 MJ per liter, we need 82.7 LPM. At 6.1 milliliters per minute per watt, we need 13,557.4 watts. At 13.8 volts, that is 982.42 amps. Now you can see why HHO is 100 percent fraud.

[PulseFuelNerd]

and bumblebees can't fly....

Yet, I recieve reports of mileage gains of 15%.

[EnergySupply2008]

@PulseFuelNerd - Absolutely brilliant. What do bumblebees have to do with the HHO scam? People telling you they get 15 percent does not take into account varying road grades. My car reports 99.99 MPG going down a slight downgrade on the highway and 18-27 MPG going up a slight upgrade. Plus, we cannot see inside the gas tank to know with precision if we filled it the same each time. (trapped air for the vapor recovery system) and pump click off measures air back pressure, not gallons.

[EnergySupply2008]

NASA Part 2

NASA got 10 percent enrichment from the reformer, producing 83.746 MJ per hour. NASA tested a 7.4-liter engine at 55 MPH. Therefore, its energy requirement was 837.46 MJ per hour.

Gasoline weighs 6.153 pounds or 2.791 Kilograms per gallon. The LHV of a gallon of gasoline is 43.448 MJ per Kilogram X 2.791 or 121.26 MJ.

At 24 MPG at 60 MPH, we use 2.5 gallons X 121.26 or 303.15 MJ per hour, (LHV) which is 5.0525 MJ per minute.

My video shows that at 120F HHO has 0.00722413544

[EnergySupply2008]

NASA Part 1

My video used Higher Heating Value. NASA used Lower Heating Value because internal combustion engines cannot capture the heat in the condensation of combustion. Using LHV makes more sense. Now it is time to convert my video numbers to LHV.

NASA used wasted exhaust heat to reform methanol into hydrogen. The resulting gases produced 83.746 MJ per hour. (LHV) - Only 27.662 MJ per hour came from the hydrogen. The other 56.084 MJ per hour came from the UNreformed methanol.

[jones13186]

so how much energy from the gasoline does it take to make the 25amps used to run the hho fuel cell? A little more than your stereo right ? Then factor in better combustion from hydrogen,oxygen,and petro mixture. So the small 25amp loss compared to the small gain still could help? I'm surely as not as smart as you. I am just wishing for you to explain a little better for me. I am not saying you are wrong but asking you to prove that Im wrong. thanks be gentle

[EnergySupply2008]

@jones13186 - My video shows with extreme precision that a HHO device producing 3.05 LPM produces 1.322 MJ of energy in one hour, while using 1.8 MJ of energy from the engine in one hour, while said engine uses 322.36 MJ of energy in one hour. So the question is, with an HHO device using more energy than it produces, how can anyone believe that HHO increases miles per gallon?

[EnergySupply2008]

Youtube user Eletrikride, aka, The One and Only Smack, has put notice on his website that he is no longer selling HHO devices for the purpose of boosting miles per gallon. He has said hundreds of times that the skeptics would never get him to back down on his claims, so I think he must have got a visit from the Enivioremental Protection Agency or the Federal Trade Commission or the FBI or perhaps the Consumer Protection Agency.

[EnergySupply2008]

Summary of my video.

Per liter, gasoline has 4734 times more energy than HHO at 120 F degrees.

At 500 watts at 6.1 milliliters per minute per watt (MMW) - per hour, HHO produces 1.322 Mega Joules of energy and consumes 1.8 MJ.

At 8.31 MMW, we could break even. But, 7.0621 MMW is 100 percent Faraday efficiency, so we cannot break even.

3.05 LPM provides 0.41% of the energy required by a 24.1 MPG vehicle and the HHO robs more energy from the engine than it gives back to the engine.

[EnergySupply2008]

At 120 F, HHO = 0.007224 MJ of energy per liter = 6.84715 BTU.

1,500-watt electric heater = 5,118 BTU per hour.

1,500 watt HHO device at 6 milliliters per minute per watt, produces 9,000 ml or 540,000 ml an hour or 540 liters x 6.84715 BTU = 3,697 BTU per hour.

Heat with 1500 watts for one hour.

Electric 5118 BTU

HHO 3697 BTU

3697 + 38.44 percent = 5118. Electric heat = 38.44 percent more with the same amount of electrical watts. Heating with HHO wastes energy and money.

[EnergySupply2008]

HHO can NOT reduce gasoline consumption.

watch?v=9GAcjkx8F48

ZeroFossilFuel, 5 HP engine powered alternator that powered HHO device. Tested run times with measured amount of gasoline, with and without HHO. In the comments, he wrote:

No alternator load, no HHO, run time = X

25A alternator load, no HHO, run time = 0.86X

25A load, HHO fed back to carb, RT = 0.94X

25 amps REDUCED run time by 6 percent. HHO device could NOT even make enough energy to offset its own energy consumption.

[EnergySupply2008]

Now, the ZeroFossilFuel test showed that 25 amps into an HHO device, can NOT even power itself when used on a tiny engine. What are the chances that will change for the better on a car using more than 8 times more gasoline per hour than that tiny engine? The answer is ZERO chance.

[EnergySupply2008]

My video shows that per liter, HHO has 0.007224 MJ of energy and gasoline has 34.2MJ of energy.

At 60 MPH at 24 MPG, we use 2.5 gallons, or 9.46352 liters of gasoline per hour. 9.46352 liters X 34.2 MJ of energy = 323.65 MJ of energy per hour.

At 3 LPM of HHO, 180 liters per hour X 0.007224 MJ per liter = 1.30 MJ of energy per hour. Which is only 0.40 percent of 323.65That is why HHO CANNOT increase miles per gallon.

[Paxmax]

You where really nice to them ES2008...

I'd just like to point out that the alternator is taking it's 500W from the crankshaft that is driven by a petrol engine with an efficiency of 30%... so 1500W is spent to make 500W of energy to oxy-hydro device.. fabulos scam them HHO:rs

[EnergySupply2008]

Paxmax, yes, I was very nice to the HHO scammers. Not only did I not talk about the efficiency problems you mentioned, neither did I talk about how the altenator is only about 85 percent efficient.

[a1mint]

Plus there's a loss (in heat) in the electrolysis process.

Supposedly, the engine would become so much more efficient, that all the losses are made up for.

rriigghhtt....

[a1mint]

So, what's keeping Smack? From what I gathered in the original video Smack in particular was OWNED like I have not seen anyone else owned ever. None, and I mean *NONE* of the claims Smack made turned out to be correct or viable. Everything he said was completely and utterly debunked hands down - in full detail too! His "genset" claims were debunked, and he evaded any real testing on an actual vehicle.

All the information turned out that HHO simply can not work, P_E_R_I_O_D.

[EnergySupply2008]

Smack will not be back to my video. In the approximately 250 posts he left on the last one, there were about a half dozen people who disproved everything he said, so at least he learned some things.

[a1mint]

I vaguely remembering him mumbling something like "The Smack will never give up and stand down" something like that.

[EnergySupply2008]

@a1mint

"I vaguely remembering him mumbling something like "The Smack will never give up and stand down" something like that"

I just read that again and starting laughing like crazy.

[a1mint]

@EnergySupply2008

So what's our friend Smackywacky up to these days?

Last I saw he was vying for government funding in a suit behind a table demonstrating how he could run a generator off of some leaves and twigs.

Something like that from the impression I got if I remember correctly.

[EnergySupply2008]

@a1mint

It had to happen eventually. Now Smack has lost all his marbles.

[a1mint]

c

Excellent job ES'08 !

[NotSoOldHippy]

There are a *lot* of crooks out there trying a whole spectrum of frauds and scams on the gullible, ignorant public. HHO is one of the dumbest frauds out there.

[merlinspower]

I just wish to say that you are using a lot of time + energy to go to the trouble of "exposing HHO or oxy-hydrogen as a "net loss", to everyone interested in producing a clean, inexpensive, powerful odorless, colorless, inexhaustable , invisable FUEL on demand which is BTW very dangerous, exciting and educational too. Why would you creat such a campainge to discredit such? Did you loose a couple of fingers, your hearing, or something worse?

[EnergySupply2008]

HHO is not inexpensive. An HHO device at 6.1 MMW (86.34 percent Faraday efficiency) with 500 watts input per hour, uses 1.8 MJ of energy from the engine to produce 1.322 MJ worth of HHO. That means you get better MPG if you turn off the HHO device, as happened in the Dateline NBC test at the certified EPA testing facility. So HHO wastes gasoline. That makes HHO very expensive over time.

[EnergySupply2008]

HHO is not powerful either.

Mega Joules of energy per liter.

Liquid Hydrogen = 10.1

Compressed Hydrogen at 10153 PSI = 5.6

Gaseous Hydrogen = 0.01079

HHO = 0.007224 (at typical HHO temp of 120 F)

Gasoline = 34.2

[EnergySupply2008]

@Merlinspower - What you need to understand is that the people searching for more miles per gallon with HHO will never achieve their goals, mathmatics proves it.

Therefore, it is the HHO people who are using far more of their time and energy on chasing the impossible dream, than I am by posting a video with the truth.

[a1mint]

I got a good one...

"Nothing is violated in Thermodynamics but the equation is larger than just the energy needed to break the covalent bonds."

[EnergySupply2008]

The boiling point of Hydrogen is 423 degrees Fahrenheit BELOW zero. Below that temperature, it is liquid, above it, gaseous.

Mega Joules of energy per liter.

Liquid Hydrogen = 10.1

Compressed Hydrogen at 10153 PSI = 5.6

Gaseous Hydrogen = 0.01079

HHO = 0.007224 (at typical HHO temp of 120 F)

Gasoline = 34.2

34.2 divided by 0.007224 = 4734. Therefore, we see that it takes 4734 liters of HHO to equal one liter of gasoline. Therefore, HHO is a half an ant fart compared to gasoline.

[EnergySupply2008]

The source of these numbers is listed in the side bar under "Table of Energy Density" - The HHO energy density of 0.007224 comes from my video.

[kremene]

sir lets take acloser look:

from 1 liter of water we can obtain 111.83 grames of H2 gaseous .ok?

this mean 15.99 megaJoules ok?

thats almost half of the energy of 1 liter of gasoline?right?

we can say that in 2.5 liters of tap water hide so much energy from 1 liter of gasoline right?

[EnergySupply2008]

Correct. But my video shows 1 liter of water becomes 2215 liters of HHO at 120 F degrees. At 3.05 liters per minute it takes 12.1 hours to make 2215 liters. At 60 MPH at 24.1 miles per gallon for 12.1 hours, you travel 726 miles on 30.12 gallons of gasoline, so you burn 114 liters to make the equivelent of 1 liter of gasoline. (0.87 percent)

Per hour, a 500 watt HHO device producing 3.05 LPM uses 1.8 Mega Joules of energy from the engine to make 1.322 Mega Joules worth of HHO. A net loss.

[kfortner51]

@EnergySupply2008

Would you care to go through your calculations and be a bit more specific.

ie: How much gasoline is being used in an engine that gets 15mpg at 60mph running at 2000rpm. What is the per cylinder per cycle numbers relevant to the amount of gas introduced into this engine at these rates and your 3.05 L/m.

[EnergySupply2008]

@kfortner51

At 15 MPG at 60 miles per hour we use 4 gallons in an hour X 129.46 Mega Joules per gallon = 517.84 Mega Joules of input. At 3.05 liters per minute of HHO, 183 liters per hour X 0.007224 Mega Joule per liter = 1.321992 MJ or only 0.255 percent of the requirement. Breaking it down per cylinder per cycle would not alter these facts.