HHO & Vehicle Acceleration

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by eric_haakenson

Gasoline is a fuel that works. Hydrogen (HHO) is just another fuel. If I understood the Ratio of the Gasoline/HHO required from Startup to max acceleration then develop a HHO flow control/throttle (assuming I have sufficient HHO production/stored reserves), then all I am doing is changing my fuel source. I will have to review the Law of Thermodynamics. Regarding a perpetual motion machine, My understanding is a perpetual motion machine the original fuel source is not diminished, just as a gasoline tank is consumed by vehicle use, so the HHO water in the electrolyte solution would also diminish. Therefore, I don't think trading fuel sources that both are consumed is considered a perpetual motion machine.
E

Perhaps these thoughts can help clear it up:

The issue isn't about fuels, it's about energy sources. A fuel is a way to store energy. That energy has to come from somewhere. With gasoline, that energy comes from biomatter that decomposed millions of years ago (which, itself, acquired its energy from the sun or from things that got it from the sun) and has recently been mined from underground. When you make HHO you are not making an energy source; you are merely storing energy.

To look at it another way, creating HHO is the opposite process of burning it. You use energy to split molecules up to create it, then you recombine those same molecules and release the energy you previously used splitting them when you burn it. Of course, no process is perfect, plenty of waste happens, so the end result is that you release less energy than you put in, the remainder having been wasted as heat. So, creating HHO isn't merely a minor prerequisite; it's actually a complete un-burning of HHO.

[eric_haakenson]

Greetings All Again, Please review this article I can across, Thank you. E
From How Does HHO work | HHO Conversion Kit | Gas Conversion Kits

Bob Volk's response to Popular Mechanics:

Begin Quote:
"We build and test HHO Generators constantly with measurable results. We will tune up a vehicle, run 2-3 tanks of gas through it and calculate average mileage. Then we install a full system (including EFIE's for O2 sensors or at least stand-offs). We then run another 2-3 tanks of gas and compare mileage. We ALWAYS get improvement, ALWAYS. Improvements range from 20% to 120% (with a dual gen system installed) The vehicle generally runs 5-7 degrees cooler, the exhaust ceases to stink. There is a noticeable increase in throttle response both from a dead stop and on the highway in passing gear. A good kit DOES work. That said, there are a lot of really bad designs, inefficient electrolyzers that produce so little gas they don't even create a blip on the gas/airflow meter. Unfortunately, these make a bad name for all the viable kits out there. Speaking of bad design, in observing the kit you installed, you could not have selected a worse unit to test. You want a real test? Install a real unit. I would personally be willing to fly out to your shop and install one of our units (complete system) at our expense, just to prove to you it works. How about it? Will you take the challenge? Let's approach this from a true scientific basis using a measured gallon of gas, emissions testing the whole works? How about it? One of our company goals is to bring legitimacy to this technology. We are approaching this very aggressively and are patenting certain aspects of our new products, and will be manufacturing a cutting edge commercial grade unit which is currently in its final stages of development. We would not be wasting time and resources if it were not viable. Now a quick word to the skeptics throwing math around on these posts - no credible manufacturer is claiming free energy here, just incredible increases in engine efficiency. But to help explain it more thoroughly, lets look at it together...

Simple Math for the "experts" Here's the simple math I use to explain it to "the experts" when they say we're attempting to violate the "Laws" of conservation of energy. 1) The best I.C.E. is 18% efficient, 20% on a good day. 2) The process of brute force electrolysis today has been pushed to about 85% Faraday. Note: Based on the caloric energy available from burning Hydrogen, by using Faraday's "Law" to translate from electrical energy it is estimated that 100% efficient hydrogen electrolysis is achieved by creating somewhere between 5.5-7.5 milliliters of gas per minute per watt of energy consumed. Members of our research group have run the numbers several ways which all seem to point to around 7.0 m/m/w or mmw for short. Many of our cells have operated as high as 6mmw or roughly 85% efficient 3) The product of electrolysis is HHO which has it's own energy value, up to 85% of what we put in. If all we considered was the return of energy value when we inject the HHO as a supplement to gasoline, then yes; Conservation of energy applies. HOWEVER! HHO as an additive does more than return 85% of the energy we put in to create it. It's properties enhance the slow burning gasoline, speeding up the rate of combustion, causing much more of the total combustion process to be translated into mechanical energy rather than being lost as waste heat out the tail pipe, raising the efficiency of the total system. Returning to the simple math... 4) Let's say we're able to translate just 10% more of the total system energy to mechanical energy. We have still not violated conservation of energy, only raised the total system efficiency to 28%. But that's an increase of 55%!!! Now deduct the energy loss of 15% to create the HHO that made this possible and you still end up with a total net gain of 40%! This is not rocket science. It's simple math. And it works.

The reality is some are getting even more, up to 35% mechanical efficiency, 94% gain, -15% to create the HHO, 79% total net gain. That's 54 MPG on a car that started out at 30.

People are doing this. It is working. The move is on and there is no stopping it."

End Quote

[GasSavers_BEEF]

At the very top of that link, it says "PROTECTED BY COPYSCAPE DO NOT COPY"

The link you posted also sells the kits....they may be biased (just maybe)

[eric_haakenson]

Sorry about the No Copy, I didn't notice it.
E