The alternator HAS to rotate, So why not convert that wasted cycle into hydrogen... mmmmh... question; Doesn't oxygen accelerate FOSSIL FUEL Combustion. lol
I am so glad the HHO scammers have faded away. The time I spent trying to reason with some of them was a waste. My energy source has been and currently is veggie oil or diesel from plastic, roofing waste or waste motor oil. Algae has more promise than the HHO scams.
@billysgeo People get between 4-6 milliliters per minute per watt. Watch my video called ABSOLUTE PROOF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HHO TO INCREASE MILES PER GALLON.
In that video, I establish that in 1834 Michael Faraday proved that 100 percent efficient electrolysis yields 7.0621 milliliters per minute per watt. But in order to do that, there must be no wattage imparting heat to the water, so that number is only attainable with very low wattage. In Michael Faraday's case, 2.36 watts.
@EnergySupply2008 OK, now I see, but I don't see anywhere clearly stated what catalyst is added to the water (if any) to get those numbers. Also will that be tap water, distiled water, deionized water...?
@billysgeo An electrolysis cell with only distilled water, would draw zero amps and make zero HHO. Water, by itself, does not conduct electricity. Tap water might work somewhat, deionized water I am not sure about. Most experimenters use distilled water because it is very clean and does not leave crap all over the plates, but they add sodium hydroxide (lye drain cleaner) to act as an electrolyte. The more amps they want to draw, the more sodium hydroxide they mix into the water.
That is exactly why HHO does not work, it takes more energy to make the HHO than it returns back to the engine. Also, NASA added a hell of a lot more hydrogen than any HHO system can deliver. NASA also used a methanol reformer (Second fuel source) to make the hydrogen and the reformer was powered by waste heat from the exhaust, not electricity from the alternator. HHO is a total scam.
1) On line one of ZeroFossilFuel's table, no HHO load and no HHO injected, run time was 11:40 with no effort made to lean out the carb.
2) Lines 5 + 6 show runtime increased by 1:25 when leaned out, add 1:25 to 11:40 and it is likely the line one baseline runtime could be as high as 13:05.
A very important point to understand about ZeroFossilfuel, is that for years, he has been selling a wide range of HHO products at alt-nrg DOT o r g / store DOT h t m l.
To date, he has NOT saved even one drop of gasoline on his own car. He is either a fool or a scam artist. Take your pick.
Right Black Dog! Look at theNASA Report EMISSIONS AND TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF A MULTICYLINDER PISTON ENGINE RUNNING ON GASOLINE AND A HYDROGEN GASOLINE MIXTURE. It's about the 18 % fuel that gets treated by the catalytic converter. That a lot of unused BTU's
NASA got a 6.38% improvement by injecting 631 grams per hour. 631 grams of hydrogen has 90.23 Mega Joules of energy.
As this video shows, 3.05 LPM of HHO, or 183 liters per hour, only has 1.32 MJ of energy. And while making the 3.05 LPM, the energy yield is 1.322 MJ and it takes 1.8 MJ of energy to make the 1.322 MJ worth of HHO.
watch?v=qn480IwYi2g
Sorry, but people who point to the NASA study as proof of concept for HHO are just retards being the ultimate retards.
I gave up trying to prove that HHO is a scam to the believers. The best I saw was an HHO rigged car (1971 V8 oldsmobile) that got 28 MPG. On closer examination disconnecting the HHO system got the same mileage. The vaporizer/ water cooled reaction chamber allowed the engine to run on lean fuel. In a few months the whole thing blew up when pistons melted. Instead of wasting my time on these scams I got a diesel and run on used cooking oil and trans fluid.
Awesome video: thank you. The cult nuts insist that adding a tiny fraction of an engine's intake with oxyhydrogen will make the gasoline vapor ignite faster--- their "just so story" to explain what they have never actually demonstrated: an increase in fuel economy with their devices. By the way, the "hho" device Sean and Dustin put in Eric Krieg's car has corroded into sludge--- they never managed to get it to work.
Again, you leave out the important issue, the reaction of HHO with the hydrocarbon fuel. It's not about the energy in HHO, it's about the energy that HHO releases from the hydrocarbon fuel. Gains in TE are higher that the losses at the alternator.
@BlackDogSociety - This video shows that gasoline has 5193 times more energy than oxyhydrogen. So if you want to replace the energy in a 24 gallon gasoline tank, you need a 124,632 gallon oxyhydrogen tank. There are 7.48 gallons to a cubic foot, so you need a tank that is 16,662 cubic feet. If the tank was 1 foot X 1 foot it would have to be 16,662 feet long. A tank 3.16 miles long would make it a bit hard to turn corners.
The alternator HAS to rotate, So why not convert that wasted cycle into hydrogen... mmmmh... question; Doesn't oxygen accelerate FOSSIL FUEL Combustion. lol
saturnfiverocket 6 months ago
I am so glad the HHO scammers have faded away. The time I spent trying to reason with some of them was a waste. My energy source has been and currently is veggie oil or diesel from plastic, roofing waste or waste motor oil. Algae has more promise than the HHO scams.
cleatrampler 8 months ago
Awesome video, I would add just 2 things:
1) People simply don't grasp the amount of energy in a gallon of gas
2) People simply don't appreciate how cheap gasoline really is.
christo930 10 months ago
@christo930 I agree with what you said. Most HHO people are no where near scientific enough to understand that it is not practical.
Check out my video called ABSOLUTE PROOF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HHO TO INCREASE MILES PER GALLON
EnergySupply2008 10 months ago
First of all, I must say what a great video this is.
Very detailed and informative, unlike any proHHO "proof" that is, at best, pseudoscience.
But I must ask, where did you get the "6.1 milliliters per minute per watt"?
Is this the standard HHO output / power for a typical HHO Cell?
billysgeo 11 months ago
@billysgeo People get between 4-6 milliliters per minute per watt. Watch my video called ABSOLUTE PROOF IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HHO TO INCREASE MILES PER GALLON.
In that video, I establish that in 1834 Michael Faraday proved that 100 percent efficient electrolysis yields 7.0621 milliliters per minute per watt. But in order to do that, there must be no wattage imparting heat to the water, so that number is only attainable with very low wattage. In Michael Faraday's case, 2.36 watts.
EnergySupply2008 11 months ago
@EnergySupply2008 OK, now I see, but I don't see anywhere clearly stated what catalyst is added to the water (if any) to get those numbers. Also will that be tap water, distiled water, deionized water...?
billysgeo 11 months ago
@billysgeo An electrolysis cell with only distilled water, would draw zero amps and make zero HHO. Water, by itself, does not conduct electricity. Tap water might work somewhat, deionized water I am not sure about. Most experimenters use distilled water because it is very clean and does not leave crap all over the plates, but they add sodium hydroxide (lye drain cleaner) to act as an electrolyte. The more amps they want to draw, the more sodium hydroxide they mix into the water.
EnergySupply2008 11 months ago
@Jandre680
That is exactly why HHO does not work, it takes more energy to make the HHO than it returns back to the engine. Also, NASA added a hell of a lot more hydrogen than any HHO system can deliver. NASA also used a methanol reformer (Second fuel source) to make the hydrogen and the reformer was powered by waste heat from the exhaust, not electricity from the alternator. HHO is a total scam.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
It really depends how you setup the engines, so that is why your theoretical values
only make sense in your examples, but there are cases, where HHO
has really big effects.
Have a look at Zerofossilfuel´s latest measurements at:
/watch?v=zwqisOfTw0E
Regards, Stefan.
overunitydotcom 1 year ago
@overunitydotcom
1) On line one of ZeroFossilFuel's table, no HHO load and no HHO injected, run time was 11:40 with no effort made to lean out the carb.
2) Lines 5 + 6 show runtime increased by 1:25 when leaned out, add 1:25 to 11:40 and it is likely the line one baseline runtime could be as high as 13:05.
3) 13:05 to 10:49 is a huge loss in runtime.
4) So how does this prove anything? He is wasting gas, not saving it.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
@overunitydotcom
A very important point to understand about ZeroFossilfuel, is that for years, he has been selling a wide range of HHO products at alt-nrg DOT o r g / store DOT h t m l.
To date, he has NOT saved even one drop of gasoline on his own car. He is either a fool or a scam artist. Take your pick.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
Right Black Dog! Look at theNASA Report EMISSIONS AND TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF A MULTICYLINDER PISTON ENGINE RUNNING ON GASOLINE AND A HYDROGEN GASOLINE MIXTURE. It's about the 18 % fuel that gets treated by the catalytic converter. That a lot of unused BTU's
Jandre680 1 year ago
@Jandre680
NASA got a 6.38% improvement by injecting 631 grams per hour. 631 grams of hydrogen has 90.23 Mega Joules of energy.
As this video shows, 3.05 LPM of HHO, or 183 liters per hour, only has 1.32 MJ of energy. And while making the 3.05 LPM, the energy yield is 1.322 MJ and it takes 1.8 MJ of energy to make the 1.322 MJ worth of HHO.
watch?v=qn480IwYi2g
Sorry, but people who point to the NASA study as proof of concept for HHO are just retards being the ultimate retards.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
I gave up trying to prove that HHO is a scam to the believers. The best I saw was an HHO rigged car (1971 V8 oldsmobile) that got 28 MPG. On closer examination disconnecting the HHO system got the same mileage. The vaporizer/ water cooled reaction chamber allowed the engine to run on lean fuel. In a few months the whole thing blew up when pistons melted. Instead of wasting my time on these scams I got a diesel and run on used cooking oil and trans fluid.
chargermopar 1 year ago
HHO cultists don't know what the bloody fuck they're talking about.
AngryNotSoOldHippy 1 year ago
Awesome video: thank you. The cult nuts insist that adding a tiny fraction of an engine's intake with oxyhydrogen will make the gasoline vapor ignite faster--- their "just so story" to explain what they have never actually demonstrated: an increase in fuel economy with their devices. By the way, the "hho" device Sean and Dustin put in Eric Krieg's car has corroded into sludge--- they never managed to get it to work.
Desertphile 1 year ago
Good video.
higherpoweredh2o 1 year ago
HaHaHa, I can hear the HHO Believers now, But, But, But Math lies.
HHOinfo 1 year ago
Again, you leave out the important issue, the reaction of HHO with the hydrocarbon fuel. It's not about the energy in HHO, it's about the energy that HHO releases from the hydrocarbon fuel. Gains in TE are higher that the losses at the alternator.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety - And your proof that HHO releases more energy from the hydrocarbon fuel is where?
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety - This video shows that gasoline has 5193 times more energy than oxyhydrogen. So if you want to replace the energy in a 24 gallon gasoline tank, you need a 124,632 gallon oxyhydrogen tank. There are 7.48 gallons to a cubic foot, so you need a tank that is 16,662 cubic feet. If the tank was 1 foot X 1 foot it would have to be 16,662 feet long. A tank 3.16 miles long would make it a bit hard to turn corners.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety
yeah no not really, "hho" (H2 O2) is not a catalist buddy therefore you are INCORRECT
snowman3514 1 year ago