HH-O Hydromoving Technology

wstar · 01-28-2013, 09:17 AM

100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from.

He could be splitting more water for 18A than a pure-electric system would, by using some of the engine's waste heat to accelerate the process. As he's stated elsewhere, I think, it could be that he thinks he's upping the gasoline-burning efficiency of the engine with the addition of these gasses by affecting combustion temps, etc. Most likely (and this is what it has been in other cases in the past), he's made generic changes to the tuning of the vehicle (it's running too lean, idling slower, etc) and trading off long-term engine damage probabilities or tuning more specifically to the atmospheric conditions of the test (which could be done with a stock setup as well and has nothing to do with this HHO nonsense).

That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions.

wheee! · 01-28-2013, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from.

ILet's say a high power stereo system drawing 18 Amps or separating water at 18 Amps uses the same power. If that has minimal effect on the performance of the engine prior to adding the hydrogen and oxygen which results in more efficient combustion and reduced emissions, then he has achieved his goals. If the current draw reduces hp by more than the H + O combustion, then we have an issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

He could be splitting more water for 18A than a pure-electric system would, by using some of the engine's waste heat to accelerate the process. As he's stated elsewhere, I think, it could be that he thinks he's upping the gasoline-burning efficiency of the engine with the addition of these gasses by affecting combustion temps, etc. Most likely (and this is what it has been in other cases in the past), he's made generic changes to the tuning of the vehicle (it's running too lean, idling slower, etc) and trading off long-term engine damage probabilities or tuning more specifically to the atmospheric conditions of the test (which could be done with a stock setup as well and has nothing to do with this HHO nonsense).

Yes, I would agree that some tuning changes are definitely required to accommodate a system like this. He has already stated he wrote the software to change the ECU. He also stated that his system employs a multiple anonde cathode array for parallel separation and efficiency. All of which draws about 18 amps. If that is all it takes to generate 100ml of H+O per 100kms, then the results he is claiming are possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions.

This has yet to be proven conclusively I guess. I assume that is the point of his research.

I appreciate your serious comments and intelligent questions. Let's hope that there is real progress being made with this technology, merely for the sake of progress!

wstar · 01-29-2013, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheee!

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions.

This has yet to be proven conclusively I guess. I assume that is the point of his research.

I just want to be clear about what we're saying is or isn't conclusive. It's a conclusive fact of known science that the process of using input electrical current to split water into H2 and O2, and then burning that H2 and O2 for energy, is a net loss of energy. There are inefficiencies in every conversion, and you cannot get out more than you put in (or even the exact same amount you put in - always less). Whatever drag 18A of electrical charge places on an engine through an alternator *has* to be less than the amount of additional engine power provided by throwing the resulting H2 and O2 into the combustion chamber.

This is very basic science. If these constraints are violated, we're in the realm of whacko perpetual motion machines, or entirely new physics that would completely change the course of the future for everyone. These are the kinds of things that, if they happen at all, are going to happen based on man-centuries of work by PhD's at particle accelerator labs. It would be completely unheard of for physics to be upended by a simple car engineering experiment.

What's questionable is the other little engineering bits: it's possible he could be making a net gain on the whole car system by exploiting *other* inefficiencies (e.g. engine tuning, waste heat) that have nothing to do with the "HHO" conversion, which give him a net positive result overall. If that's the case, I would argue those changes would be even more effective without wasting energy on the HHO step.

lorenz1955 · 01-29-2013, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

This is very basic science. If these constraints are violated, we're in the realm of whacko perpetual motion machines, or entirely new physics that would completely change the course of the future for everyone. These are the kinds of things that, if they happen at all, are going to happen based on man-centuries of work by PhD's at particle accelerator labs. It would be completely unheard of for physics to be upended by a simple car engineering experiment.

Dear WSTAR,
your theory is correct, perfect and known by us all.I have not violated any law of physics.I've only had luck in finding a new power system for low energy electrolysis.
The results that you see are the real test of what I did.
The tests are not homemade.Every car company, brings the car by National Office consumption and emissions control,that certifies, leave the car and after one day back to pick up the car with the report file.End.
Anyway, read the attachement of my system, you will have much clearer ideas.
This is the reply of my Patent report.
Best regards
Lorenz

lorenz1955 · 01-28-2013, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from.

Nissan protocol says....cars must original...setup....to have.
Not one screw change.
Now the car has 70,000 km without any problem, and run
always with system on.
By
Lorenz

01-28-2013, 09:17 AM	#1 (permalink)
wstar A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,024 Drives: too slow Rep Power: 3595	100ml of H2 + O2 is very very little. Sure, that would reduce current consumption and total water needed per km, but it also reduces the possible effects on fuel efficiency as well. The net power will still be a loss (in terms of energy from burning the H2 + O2 vs the current draw to separate them), that's guaranteed. Assuming his tests show positive overall efficiency gains, then we have to figure out where they came from. He could be splitting more water for 18A than a pure-electric system would, by using some of the engine's waste heat to accelerate the process. As he's stated elsewhere, I think, it could be that he thinks he's upping the gasoline-burning efficiency of the engine with the addition of these gasses by affecting combustion temps, etc. Most likely (and this is what it has been in other cases in the past), he's made generic changes to the tuning of the vehicle (it's running too lean, idling slower, etc) and trading off long-term engine damage probabilities or tuning more specifically to the atmospheric conditions of the test (which could be done with a stock setup as well and has nothing to do with this HHO nonsense). That it's known by all existing science that the water -> H2 + O2 -> burn cycle is less than 100% efficient means that part is bunk. If he's making up enough efficiency gains elsewhere in the system to offset that, chances are high those same gains can be realized in other ways without wasting energy on those conversions. __________________ 7AT Track Car! Journal thread / Car setup details

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
370Z = old technology?	captain1	Nissan 370Z General Discussions	71	09-26-2012 08:44 PM
Tru Technology S44 Amp	TWYNBYZ	Audio & Video	1	08-10-2011 03:43 PM
New Paint Technology	Mergnthwirker	Exterior & Interior	2	10-29-2009 10:08 AM