HHO Generator

>HHO tech is great
"HHO" isn't even a thing: It's a term made up by scam artists to convince marks that their product is magic.

Everyone says, "HHO" because it is faster to type than "Oxyhydrogen" that's all.

Riddle me this: how will adding a hot burning fuel (hydrogen) and oxidizer (oxygen) to a fire make it cooler?

> worst that will happen is nothing
No that's the best that will happen. The worst that'll happen is that it'll use a lot more juice than I think it will, put significant amounts of oxygen and hydrogen into the combustion chamber, make the engine run hotter, wear your oil out faster, wear your cylinders faster, foul your plugs (small chance where enough hydrogen could burn up enough of the oxygen that not enough is left over to completely burn the gas), and generally be bad for your car while ruining performance because your vehicle was tuned and designed to run on regular air.

And hell, it could cause corrosion on top of that.

Friend, I'm broke, seriously broke. If you have to part with your money that badly, I honestly need it.

>Riddle me this: how will adding a hot burning fuel (hydrogen) and oxidizer (oxygen) to a fire make it cooler?

Because the byproduct is water. :^)

>Everyone says, "HHO" because it is faster to type than "Oxyhydrogen" that's all.
If find "bullshit" is a nice, convenient word.
Seriously, what is "Oxyhydrogen" and how does it differ from old-fashioned water?

>old-fashioned water
A liquid

>Oxyhydrogen
A Gas

>water
>A liquid
Believe it or not, but there's this thing called "steam".

>Seriously, what is "Oxyhydrogen" and how does it differ from old-fashioned water?

Do you even know what google and wikipedia are?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

Oxyhydrogen is a mixture of hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) gases. This gaseous mixture is used for torches to process refractory materials and was the first[1] gaseous mixture used for welding. Theoretically, a ratio of 2:1 hydrogen:oxygen is enough to achieve maximum efficiency; in practice a ratio 4:1 or 5:1 is needed to avoid an oxidizing flame.[2]

This mixture may also be referred to as Knallgas (Scandinavian and German Knallgas: "bang-gas"), although some authors define knallgas to be a generic term for the mixture of fuel with the precise amount of oxygen required for complete combustion, thus 2:1 oxyhydrogen would be called "hydrogen-knallgas".[3]

Brown's gas[4] and HHO are fringe science terms for a 2:1 mixture of oxyhydrogen obtained under certain special conditions; its proponents claim that it has special properties.

Huh, I'm not actually familiar with that terminology.
My mistake.

Hydrogen hydroxide is water; HOH

This is so asstarded I don't even... All you're doing is inefficiently using your car battery to run your engine. Why do people fall for this shit?

>worst case is nothing happens right?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolock

you're welcome

>But the water will leave with the other combustion byproducts

It will? In a modern engine finely tuned to exactly gasoline and nothing else?

There is never any point when there is enough liquid to fill the cylinder. It's all gases. It's more likely the gasoline could fill the cylinder.

Also I've seen lots of people claiming that you can't get more energy from splitting Hydrogen from water than the energy put into it from the split.

If this were the case, wouldn't one need an atomic blast to split an atom to create an atomic blast? Yet, some how we are able to use a lesser explosion to create a massive one.

Seems to me like this might be a similar situation.

Also, to anyone saying that car manufaturers look for innovative ways to increase efficiency, that is so very false. There are numerous cars that have been put out with incredible MPG, but were only tests and immediately recalled and destroyed.

We all know those in the oil business just want money. They don't want YOUR complete satisfaction, only just enough so you don't complain, and then buy there "new and improved" .5% better MPG car in 2 years.

Planned obsolencense people.

>If this were the case, wouldn't one need an atomic blast to split an atom to create an atomic blast?

yes

>Yet, some how we are able to use a lesser explosion to create a massive one.

No.

You MAY HAVE HEARD OF: Supernovas and dying stars. It takes a massive amount of energy to create the uranium atoms that you will later split to get some, lesser, amount of energy back.

Using dead simple numbers:

It takes 100 energy to fuse uranium (in a star), and you get 99 back when you fission it.

It takes 10 energy to split water(somewhere), and you get 9 back when you recombine.

Now as you can see, the ENTIRE SYSTEM of "star" + "bomb" loses energy, but because you only measure the bomb, not the star, it looks like you "get" energy from nuclear fission.

And the ENTIRE SYSTEM of ""somewhere" + "car" loses energy in the hydrogen process, but because you only measure the car, it looks like you get energy. This works is "somewhere" is not in your car. A factory splitting hydrogen with solar cells, for example. But as soon as you put the hydrogen split into the car, now when you measure the car, it loses energy.

>We all know those in the oil business just want money. They don't want YOUR complete satisfaction, only just enough so you don't complain, and then buy there "new and improved" .5% better MPG car in 2 years.

So when a car manufacturer goes bankrupt, why didn't they just instead put out this "wonder car" they're hiding and make a ton of money as people only buy their cars instead of the competitors?

Hint: If you say "collusion," why did they collude in their own destruction?

The real answer is that people don't want the best MPG, they want the best MPG they can get while driving a big fast car with high acceleration and good comfort factor at an affordable price.

I'm also amazed people think oil companies are against other energy sources. Fyi: there are only a handful of small "oil"companies. The big guys like BP, Shell, and Exxon are energy companies. These guys are dumping staggering amounts of money into alternative energy research. If and when a change is made, they'll be in position to transfer products and services seamlessly. They care about the money and fully intend to outlast fossil fuels. Granted, in the short term, they want to maximize profits from their petrochemical divisions, but to think that a business is against continuing to make money?

>I'm also amazed people think oil companies are against other energy sources
It goes against the idea of big bad corporations keeping us down. Also, it gives you someone to blame when your meme-drive tier invention never gains traction

holy shit, you people are illiterate. i'm starting to think the OP would be better suited asking Veeky Forums, and they're just a bunch of plain old morons when it comes to, well, almost anything.

i don't know whether this thing will actually yield measurable benefits or not, but it will certainly not
- wear your battery down; it's powered by the alternator
- inefficiently use electricity; compared to an AC and the other shit running in modern cars, it won't be noticeable
- cause your engine (pistons, cylinders etc) to wear faster; i honestly have no fucking clue how you come to this conclusion, if anything, cleaner combustion is BETTER for the engine parts
- cause hydrolock; holy fucking shit - no way in hell this produces enough liquid to cause hydrolock
- cause corrosion, wear our oil faster, foul your plugs; just no.
- make your engine run worse because "it was designed to run on air"; you're essentially increasing the difference between your heat and your cold reservoir - engines are made to run in ridiculous temperatures and heights, i.e. in ridiculously differing air density and temperature conditions, and still run - the engine will cope just fucking fine

to wit: i'm not assuming that this device largely replaces the oxygen going into your engine, simply because to be able to do that it would need to produce amounts of oxygen/hydrogen that are way, way beyond the capabilities of a device this size, running on 12V. it's merely going to lace the air, which - if you're very lucky, might yield some kind of effect.

as for the assholes suggesting it's bad to have water in the engine: BMW injects water into the cylinder in the current M3/M4 for several reasons i want to avoid going into now because you can all google it by yourselves. said water just leaves the exhaust system with zero consequences to all peripheral systems, which have not been changed.

i'm still not at all convinced, OP, that this isn't snakeoil. find a workshop that has experimented with it.

You are wasting your time user. This is just another tinfoil, muh oil, muh guberment, muh corporations, muh illuminati, muh nikola tesla thread. Into-the-trash-it-goes.jpg

Was just looking at the website in the blurb for the tuner.
1: The tuner looks like claptrap piece of shit someone soldered together on a concrete floor.
2: The website copy blatantly says the controller is so you can lean out the air/fuel ratio... THAT is where any increases in fuel economy would be coming from, and they are counting on your ignorance to not realize this.
3. They are also counting on your ignorance to not realize what an incredibly fuck dumb idea it is to blow oxidizer into a combustion chamber without additional fuel to match. The result of that is detonation, which destroys pistons in short order. Never mind using their "tuner" to make sure LESS fuel gets in there.
I was interested in looking at this as a (not-so) cheap way to add power, because power and efficiency are merely two sides of the same coin. However, no matter which way I'm looking at it, it's got the "all my NOPE" stamp. Just, ugh.

Just buy a fuel efficient and environmentally friendly car. Fuck is this shit anyways? Sounds like something made up by the perpetual motion/free energy guys.

>It takes a massive amount of energy to create the uranium atoms that you will later split to get some, lesser, amount of energy back.

I'm not attempting to make hydrogen from scratch, just separating it from water. Just like when we make a bomb we don't make the uranium from scratch. Don't be so dense.

>This is just another tinfoil, muh oil, muh guberment, muh corporations, muh illuminati, muh nikola tesla thread.

Stay goy all you want, most of those tend to be truer than not. If I took everyone's word about Cryptocurrencies being scams, I'd be a poorfag like the most of you whining about this "Meme-tier" kit, that you have never tried.

> thinking government is full of decent people
What year is this ?

>HHO
>anything but a scam
lol

So, use engine power to produce X, use X to increase engine power?
Of so then no.

let's walk through this
>an HHO device uses electrolysis to convert water into hydrogen and oxygen
ok, fairly straightforward. where does it get the energy to do that?
>from the battery
ok, that's where we'd expect. where does the battery get its energy, since it never seems to actually run down?
>why, from the alternator, which charges it using some of the energy from the motor
ok, so where does the motor get its energy?
>well... from the fuel we fed in
ok, but some of that fuel is composed of the HHO we created, and we lost some of the energy used to create the HHO from electrolysis as heat in the electrolytic cell. where does the other fuel come from?
>the gasoline
so... you're using gasoline to power a reversible chemical reaction (electrolysis into combustion) minus the heat lost from electrolysis? and that's supposed to use LESS energy than gasoline alone?

the math doesn't add up

It's sad how desperate people are to avoid paying for petrol.

>Use explosion to split an atom, use split atom to increase explosion yield?

Pfft, what year is this? We all know atomic bombs will never work because you cannot get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Look at all this math, it just doesn't add up.

Clearly hydrogen can only become volatile when man introduces electricity into it, and hydrogen then only becomes flammable because we introduced energy.

If we find pure hydrogen floating in space it is inert until we electrically charge it, and then only has the amount of force we charged it to.

>reaching this far and this hard

So say, you have a motor burning fuel at 70% complete combustion. It supplies some power to an alternator which works 100%. That alternator supplies more than enough power for many features. One could be HHO which turns that slight amount of electricity into 2:1 ratio of hydrogen oxygen gas. Now introduce that gas into the fuel mixture so as to allow the incoming petrol to burn at 90% complete combustion rather than 70%.

Therefore the HHO is not providing 20% more power per stroke, but rather is a catalyst to allow the gasoline to provide 20% more power.

Is this the theory?

>That alternator supplies more than enough power for many features.
the alternator is not a magic energy box that has as much power as you need. increasing the load on the alternator increases the load on the engine

You're trying to be all smart and stuff but that's exactly how a supercharger works

Okay yes, but I can't imagine 30 amps at 12v is going to bog down an engine 20%

Cant tell if brilliant troll or giant retard...

well, essentially, an internal combustion engine is a heat engine in terms of thermodynamics. the heat reservoir is the ignited fuel/air mixture. efficiency of a heat engine is a direct function of the ratio of the heat and the cold reservoir. by putting more easily flammable content into the cylinder, you're increasing the efficiency of the engine overall. whether or not this yields "cleaner" burning of the fuel is entirely dependent on how you adjust the amount of fuel you inject, which they claim you can reduce because you "replace" some of it with the HHO.

so, essentially, the HHO is providing 20% more power per stroke (to stay with your example; this is surely a fairytale number, i'd say you should be more than happy with 5%, although that is just my humble estimation) but this in turn allows you to reduce the amount of fuel you inject, thus saving fuel.

it MAY improve burning cleanliness as well, although this is impossible to estimate as it depends entirely on the engine and on how it reacts to higher burning temperatures.

well, the hydrogen is supposedly the "additional fuel", so in theory you could make this work. how efficient this is i remain doubtful of, since if it were efficient at this price point i'm fairly sure OEMs would be offering this already.

you are absolutely right that it looks way too much like an absolute claptrap shitshow, from beginning to end.

this shit is using 30A? holy fucking shit.

I realize you're pulling numbers out of your ass for an example but in modern engines, you're talking about 95% combustion rates indicate the engine is out of tune.>by putting more easily flammable content into the cylinder, you're increasing the efficiency of the engine overall.
Not necessarily. Depends on how the engine was engineered. There are stupidly efficient engines that only run right on high octane gas (higher octane= slower burn). Burn rate is just another way of controlling timings.

let's say we have a 4 liter gasoline engine without a turbocharger running at 5000 rpm. that works out to be about 283 cubic feet per minute required for that engine, or 8,000 liters per minute of air.

let's assume we need to make up 1% of the airflow through the engine with HHO. that's 80 liters per minute, which is 53 1/3 liters hydrogen. a 100% efficient electrolytic cell requires 12,749 joules per liter of hydrogen at STP, so for one minute of engine usage we'd need ~680 kJ perminute from the engine, or 680 kW. one horsepower is 756 watts. So, we'd need a 900 horsepower engine just to run the electrolytic cell to get that volume of air.

well, that's kind of insane. and it certainly doesn't make physical sense.

let's look at it a different way. Sometimes you see an estimate of 1/8 to 1/4 the displacement of the engine in liters per minute HHO that you should provide to the engine. so, for a 4 L engine, that'd be 0.5-1 L HHO per minute, which using our figures about would require 6.3745-12.749 kJ per minute to run the electrolytic cell. that's 16 horsepower, just to run the electrolytic cell.

Okay, that's definitely doable with modern engines. again, let's do a sanity check. That rate means that in our case above, we're supplementing the air provided to the engine with HHO at a proportion of 0.000625%, and if we assume that all of the hydrogen gas we produced is newly combusted, in an ideal 100% efficient world that should get us back the original 16 horsepower.

But... we already used 16 horsepower to generate the HHO. We spent energy from the alternator to get backthe same amount of energy going into the engine. We didn't gain anything.

in fact, we probably lost energy, because not all the electricity that went into the electrolytic cell went into producing gas. quite a bit of energy is lost as heat in that process. if electrolysis isn't 100% efficient, then we're using losing energy from the system.

>a 100% efficient electrolytic cell requires 12,749 joules per liter of hydrogen

>When ignited, the gas mixture converts to water vapor and releases energy, which sustains the reaction: 241.8 kJ of energy (LHV) for every mole of H2 burned.

Seems that there would be a whole lot of energy released if a whole liter of HHO were ignited.

>Seems that there would be a whole lot of energy released if a whole liter of HHO were ignited.
One liter of HHO is only 2/3s hydrogen gas, and one liter of air at STP is 22.4 moles of gas. Multiply that number you posted by 0.0297 to figure out the energy gained from combustion of 1 L of HHO (well, assuming you had an excess of oxidant available, pure HHO on its own has excess H2).

and again, you can't neglect the energy drain you've already placed on the engine.

>I'm not attempting to make hydrogen from scratch, just separating it from water. Just like when we make a bomb we don't make the uranium from scratch. Don't be so dense.

X = "Splitting hydrogen from water" or "fusing uranium"

Y = "Reforming water" or "fissioning uranium"

Z = "A car" or "a bomb"

W = "A power plant" or "a star"

===

X takes 10 energy

Y Gives 9 energy (the loss is from inefficiencies)

If X takes place outside of Z (for example at W) and Y takes place inside Z, then you can use Y to power Z.

But if you do both X and Y inside Z, then Z doesn't work.

>- inefficiently use electricity; compared to an AC and the other shit running in modern cars, it won't be noticeable

>Additionally, I don't know what the word "inefficient" means

It's OK user.

An AC is NOT an inefficient use of energy if your goal is to cool yourself. It IS an inefficient use of energy if you use it to get better mileage.

A radio is NOT an inefficient use of energy if your goal is to hear music. It IS an inefficient use of energy if you use it to get better mileage.

An HHO system is NOT an inefficient use of energy if your goal is to burn hydrogen. It IS an inefficient use of energy if you use it to get better mileage.

Now since the AC and Radio do not advertise "better mileage," the are not inefficient at their stated goals. The HHO system is.
>- cause your engine (pistons, cylinders etc) to wear faster; i honestly have no fucking clue how you come to this conclusion, if anything, cleaner combustion is BETTER for the engine parts

>And I know you can make the combustion cleaner by introducing more fuel than the manufacturer designed the engine for, with a different flash point than the designer visualized for the gasoline mixture he recommended for the engine

OK

>- cause hydrolock; holy fucking shit - no way in hell this produces enough liquid to cause hydrolock

>Additional combustion byproducts the engine wasn't designed for will flush as efficiently as the ones the engine wasn't designed for.

OK

>- cause corrosion, wear our oil faster, foul your plugs; just no.

>Water, as we all know, isn't corrosive and the engine was designed to handle it

OK

>as for the assholes suggesting it's bad to have water in the engine: BMW injects water into the cylinder in the current M3/M4

>To prove all this, I will use an engine that WAS designed for water

OK.

>There is never any point when there is enough liquid to fill the cylinder. It's all gases. It's more likely the gasoline could fill the cylinder.

He said worst case though.

Worst case you fuck your hydrogen system installation up and it is water in stead of hydrogen that gets sprayed into the fuel lines.

>Thinking that just because the government is full of assholes, that is evidence that they're assholes in the specific way you guessed without any evidence
What year is this?

>Cant tell if brilliant troll or giant retard...

I'm guessing troll but I engage anyway because it's good practice for training the idiots working for me who ACTUALLY don't know better. If I can make the explanation explicit enough that the troll has nothing to misunderstand when actively looking, I can make it explicit enough that people trying to learn will not misunderstand by accident.

Well.

Depending on the quality of the idiot, of course.

Ok so I work in the environmental automotive department of one of the worlds largest suppliers of industrial catalysis.

If you look through the literature on engine exhaust abatement, you will find that hydrocarbon emissions in gasoline cars without catalytic converters is measured in the order of less than 100 mg/km.

Now environmentally speaking, thats a lot because there are a lot of cars, so we slap on regulations and build exhaust abatement systems and we reduce all of the emissions, not just the hydrocarbons, to near zero (and we are still pushing for less).

But as far as your fuel economy goes, a few dozen milligrams of fuel per kilometer is jack shit. And thanks to thermodynamics, you are going to have to burn more fuel to power this stupid fucking gizmo than you are ever going to get out of it, because splitting water is actually pretty energy intensive and there simply isn't enough unburnt fuel in the exhaust to make up for that loss, even assuming you will burn it all with the H2 / O2 injection (which you can't).

Add on to this the fact that you are going to fuck up your injection pressures, overheat your engine, and run a constant risk of a small hydrogen explosion when the device inevitably leaks (this is the most serious of the many fraudulent claims here), as well as the fact that you will have to constantly replace the working electrodes at cost....

well this device is absolute shit and you are a moron if you install one in your car.

>without any evidence
You are aware that most major car companies are nationalize, literally meaning owned by the government. And we all know what the government likes, money. Just compare Amtrak and Conrail to see just how a government can make something run at a loss.

>Ok so I work in the environmental automotive department of one of the worlds largest suppliers of industrial catalysis.
>In bed with car/oil companies.
>Expected to be taken seriously.

Maybe if you twads didn't lie about stupid shit like global warming, but every which way you go you must lie to push a narrative to remove liberty from the people.

I'm looking for people who have tried this device, not a all knowing "Government scientists." Because, lets be honest, your being paid to say that shit.

i was waiting for this response.

so the thing is, all of my arguments are based on measurable peer reviewed physics that you can confirm yourself.

failing that, all i can say is go fuck yourself and i hope you fork it out to buy one of these, honestly.

>global warming is the only environmental threat
nice strawman, faggot

>You are aware that most major car companies are nationalize, literally meaning owned by the government.

How many of the bankrupt ones? Zero? Ok yeah that's what I thought. So why didn't they put out wonder cars and save themselves from bankruptcy?

>I'm looking for people who have tried this device, not a all knowing "Government scientists."

People knew you couldn't get energy for free long before Big Oil or Climate Change were a thing.

"Brown's Gas" is oxyhydrogen with a 2:1 molar ratio of H2 and O2 gases, the same proportion as in water. It is named after Yull Brown, who claimed that it could be used as a fuel for the internal combustion engine.[4][13] It's also called "HHO gas" after the claims of fringe physicist[14] Ruggero Santilli, who claims that his HHO gas, produced by a special apparatus, is "a new form of water", with new properties, based on his fringe theory of "magnecules".[13]

Many other pseudoscientific claims have been made about Brown's Gas's pretended ability to neutralize radioactive waste, help plants to germinate, etc.[13]

Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with vehicles that claim to use water as a fuel. The most common and decisive counter-argument against producing this gas on board to use as a fuel or fuel additive is that more energy is needed to split water molecules than is recouped by burning the resulting gas.[4][15] Additionally, the volume of gas that can be produced for on-demand consumption through electrolysis is very small in comparison to the volume consumed by an internal combustion engine.[16]

An article in Popular Mechanics reports that Brown's Gas cannot even increase the fuel economy in automobiles (the miles per gallon), and that the only real savings come from tampering with your engine, which may confuse the anti-smog controls.[17]

"Water-fueled" cars should not be confused with hydrogen-fueled cars, where the hydrogen is produced elsewhere and used as fuel or where it is used as fuel enhancement.

>not necessarily
thermodynamically, this is true. higher octane rates follow the same principle; although they burn slower, they release more heat energy in total, which is the name of the game. it is of course possible that your engine is tuned to a very specific expansion rate, but, as cars have to work under a wide range of air density and temperature configurations, the ECU should be able to cope with this.

>be OP
>be a scammer pushing muh-meme scam water car bullshit
>ask for sound scientific opinion
>get sound scientific opinion
>try to refute science with muh conspiracy memes
>get BTFO
>abandon thread

nobody is going to buy your piece of shit product, faggot

>Additionally, I don't know what the work inefficient means
what i was trying to say - inefficiently - is this: compared to the energy you're stuffing into the AC and such, this device must use negligible amounts of energy to even be worth consideration.

>And I know you can make the combustion cleaner by introducing more fuel than the manufacturer designed the engine for, with a different flash point than the designer visualized for the gasoline mixture he recommended for the engine
did not claim this. was responding to the claim of the idiots before/the stupid ass website. however, since the idea seems to be keeping the amount of heat energy from chemical reaction the same - aka injecting less fuel to account for the added hydrogen/oxygen - you should in theory end up with less burn residue, as only one of the chemical agents produces them and the other one doesn't.

>Additional combustion byproducts the engine wasn't designed for will flush as efficiently as the ones the engine wasn't designed for.
small amounts of water will flush efficiently. there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't; in fact, the example i'm making with the M3/M4 engine is proof they don't (more on this in a moment).

>Water, as we all know, isn't corrosive and the engine was designed to handle it
water, as we all know, will pass the engine freely. in all likelihood, the engine indeed was designed to handle small amounts of water coming in through the intake. stop acting like the cylinder and the plugs will rust because there's a little water spray during operation. combustion engines are in fact quite robust.

>To prove all this, I will use an engine that WAS designed for water
you might want to keep reading to the end. the engine and its peripherals HAVE NOT been changed. to spell it out: they developed an engine and water injection was added way late in the design process. there is no extra get-the-water-out technology. there is not extra anti-corrosion technology.

>H20
engines might well be robust, but they are designed for the minimal amount of water, and the fuel is supposed to be water free. adding water purposely to the combustion chamber simply isnt a brilliant idea. also, if you arent adding a significant amount, then there really is no point in injecting the gasses in the first place, is there?

>corrosion
any water that is produced is going to react with the NOx in the exhaust and create HNO3, which is highly corrosive. again, not a good thing to have in your engine and one of the primary reasons manufacturers do not want water in the engine. frankly, your claim that "water as we all know will pass the engine freely" is patently false.

well, i never claimed there is a point to injecting these gases in the first place, it's what OP's tech claims. all i claimed was that i doubt very much it would hurt the engine at all, seeing how the amount of gases produced by these devices should be - due to their size and my assumption that they're electrical energy usage must be small - rather small.

water DOES pass the engine.
m-power.com/_open/s/editorial.jsp?id=3375&lang=en
you're right in theory about the HNO3, but this doesn't seem to be a problem, i would guess because of the small amounts of NO2 contained in the exhaust fumes.

SCAM ALERT
SCAM ALERT
If you believe you have a net gain of hydrolysis into combusting it, then you are an IDIOT

>How many of the bankrupt ones? Zero?

That would be all.

They went bankrupt, only to be bailed out by who? Oh thats right, the government.

Again, what does the government love more than anything? Money.

What produces a ton of money? Inefficiencies. Regulations. All of which we know the government does so well.

>inefficiency produces money

you've got to be a special kind of stupid, user..

>The government owns the following car companies:
>Maybach
>Saab
>Hummer
>Pontiac
>Saturn
>Oldsmobile
>Plymouth

So we're back at: Why didn't Plymout put out this wonder car instead of closing? Saab? Any of them?

> t. /sci paid shill

Also check out Stanley Meyer

Actually, now we have to move from not necessarily to a straight up no.

Efficiency is not achieved by adding more heat. It's achieved by using more of the heat you produce. As is, IC engines tend to max out at below 40% usage of the energy released by combusting the fuel. Say you have 100 units of heat released by burning 1 unit of fuel. Using a more energy dense fuel that releases 110 units of heat per unit of fuel does not change the engine's efficiency. If that engine uses 50% of the heat released, in the first case, you're talking about getting 50 units and in the second 52 units, same level of efficiency in both. Now if you somehow figure out how to use 60 units of heat, then you're talking more efficiency.

Effects of Water Injection and Increased Compression Ratio in a Gasoline Spark Ignition Engine

digital.lib.uidaho.edu/cdm/ref/collection/IR/id/11

Hey, this uses deadly dihydrogen-monoxide!

Mercedes-Benz owns Maybach. Neither were ever involved in any kind of bailout.

holy shit, you're annoying. the maximum heat engine efficiency is given by the ratio of cold reservoir to heat reservoir, so assuming constant cold reservoir, raising heat reservoir increases the maximum attainable thermal efficiency. for otto and diesel engines, the actual efficiency will always be lower than this maximum; the actual efficiency of the otto engine is given by one minus a function inversely proportional to the compression ratio to the power of the specific heat capacity of the gas in the combustion chamber. as such, the bigger the heat capacity of the gas, the bigger the efficiency of the engine.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

that being said, i remain highly doubtful that OP's device will actually work, as i have said a few times already, since in practice engines need to be tuned to the gas they are injected with. hence, the device either doesn't inject enough hydrogen/oxygen for it to be noticeable - which makes the device useless - or it does, but since the engine isn't tuned to it, it doesn't yield the benefit promised - which also makes the device useless.

thank you, this is actually very interesting.

>The thermal efficiency of a heat engine is the percentage of heat energy that is transformed into work.
It's like you haven't even read your own source.

ADVERTISEMENT DETECTED

>but but I'm talking about the carnot efficiency where if you increase the actual temperature gradient (not a potential temperature gradient) you can increase the maximum possible efficiency because I think that increasing the maximum possible efficiency also somehow increases the efficiency of a system because I don't actually fucking understand any of this.

it's like your not reading what i'm saying.
you are right. of course it is. still, the MAXIMUM ACHIEVABLE efficiency (this is what the term "theoretical efficiency", as it is named in the Wikipedia article) is given by the ratios i listed. as i have said. like three times now.

WHICH ISN'T EFFICIENCY
Look it doesn't fucking matter how many times that you try to make an upper bound into the measure itself, IT ISN'T. I'm reading what you're fucking saying and it doesn't have jack shit to do with any of this and is flat out fucking wrong in terms of this conversation. Yes, increasing the thermal gradient does increase in potentia maximum efficiency but that literally has fuckall to do with anything. It does NOTHING to increase the actual efficiency, nothing.

No, just a slave. If only more people realized they were slaves we could stop this madness.

>i get paid to waste time at work posting on Veeky Forums

lol now that is grasping at straws

>The theory seems quite sound.

Sure, if you are a fucking idiot who doesn't know the first thing about thermodynamics.

But that's just what they are banking on here, most people simply don't know any physics or chemistry to make sense of this themselves, so they just couch themselves in the idea that "hey that seems reasonable AND those nasty corporations are just trying to trick me".

The manipulation is obvious tho, you shouldnt need a STEM degree here to see the red flags going up on this scam.

the concept is not merely
about thermodynamics, pleb
it's about the effect of hydrogen
and oxygen (small amounts)
in the combustion stream

Oxygen is not
New to the combustion
In all weathers: Air

hydrogen burns hot
but gasoline does as well
and is much cheaper

thermodynamics
is ill understood by you
but that is okay

faget

10/10, sublime and beautiful, the cut is made cleanly, user

>faget
That ending really keeps it together all nice and neat

yup, you're completely right. which is why i said that in theory, this device could increase the efficiency (seeing how it could potentially raise the maximum efficiency of the process), yet i remain highly doubtful that this will actually work in practice.

i think we're on the same page about this shit and are just getting lost in translation.

>10/10, sublime and beautiful, the cut is made cleanly, user

>That ending really keeps it together all nice and neat

Thank you thank you

Like all artists I am still unsatisfied with my work bu I appreciate that it is appreciated.

Fucking conspiritards fuck off to /x/

It's not conspiracy. The government just wants power. If they could micromanage every facet of your life, they would.

Wake up, kid and smell the roses.

152.106.6.200/bitstream/handle/10210/11957/Paper.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Will these devices reduce the amount of gasoline per mile your car takes?

Probably.

Will they reduce the cost of traveling a given mile?

Absolutely not.
Quite matter of factly, the amount of energy put into the bho system will be far less than that
produced by the ignition of the hydrogen. Overall you will out in more energy than you get out.

Whether you use your car battery or disposables the cost will be far higher to run your car with a bho system than without.

>hydrogen burns hot
>but gasoline does as well
No.
Lrn2combustion fgt pls