The energy of the future: HHO dry cell generators.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheChrome
a reply to: Pilgrum

The whole point of the thread, is that dry cells are more efficient than wet cells. Most dry cell designs use stainless steel from what I have seen. What kind of efficiency would be achieved using super conductive metals or alloys?

Even using Unobtanium you have to remember....

And for those that don't understand electrolysis, it can never give you more energy out in the form of hydrogen and oxygen to be combusted than you put in in the form of electricity. Ever.

I understand that. What I don't get, is somehow the use of gasoline does not have the same argument. There is a huge cost for exploring, drilling, pumping, refining and the associated engineering costs. As I have asked before in this thread, is the cost of gasoline less than the draw on a battery producing HHO through electrolysis? There are no perfectly efficient methods that we have discovered, which is more efficient?

originally posted by: TheChrome
There is a huge cost for exploring, drilling, pumping, refining and the associated engineering costs.

All costs (and good profits) are recovered by the sale price of petrol.

is the cost of gasoline less than the draw on a battery producing HHO through electrolysis?

That makes no sense at all! It is like asking "Are the number of socks in a drawer less than the length of a ant trail!

There are no perfectly efficient methods that we have discovered, which is more efficient?

Let us see,one is capable of running a car at high speeds over long distances, (and is quickly refilled) The other one only works until the battery runs flat after a short time!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheChrome
There is a huge cost for exploring, drilling, pumping, refining and the associated engineering costs.

is the cost of gasoline less than the draw on a battery producing HHO through electrolysis?

There are no perfectly efficient methods that we have discovered, which is more efficient?

Let us see,one is capable of running a car at high speeds over long distances, (and is quickly refilled) The other one only works until the battery runs flat after a short time!

Have you tested this hypothesis?

originally posted by: TheChrome
Have you tested this hypothesis?

I think popular mechanics has done numerous HHO tests over the years. Here are the results from one of them, the others are similar:

Water-Powered Cars: Hydrogen Electrolyzer Mod Can't Up MPGs

Water-powered cars continue to be the largest single topic taking over my in box--and the Comments section of this website. And it's not just my recent column on the truth about water-chugging prototypes. This trend has become an obsession with many backyard inventors, and some of them have become quite strident, insisting that if I knew anything at all about cars, I'd be embracing this technology. They say it could help change the world as we know it. They even say it could eliminate the energy crisis altogether. For this sentiment, I applaud them. And honestly, I hope it's all true.

Unfortunately, I have to indict their physics. The entire concept of running your car on water is based on bad science. The idea is to use electricity from the car's alternator to electrolyze water into HHO, a mixture of pure hydrogen and oxygen. This mix is fed into the intake air, where it is burned along with gasoline, thereby increasing your fuel economy anywhere from 15 to 100 percent--depending on which website you're visiting. Believe the hype, and those 1 to 2 liters of HHO streamed into the engine will double the fuel economy, clean the engine out, and maybe even grow hair. Plenty of these budget sites even claim their devices are efficient enough for a version that would run a car entirely on water--no gasoline at all.

If this sounds like it's too good to be true, it is. And I've discussed it in this column too many times to go over again, so I won't. I've tested way too many bogus gas savers and miracle fuel-saving gadgets over the years to buy in to this one. So it's time to put up or shut up, and do what we do best around here--test drive, generate real-world numbers, and come up with realistic answers.

So, last month I received an electrolyzer, fabricated by my old Monster Garage partner, Steve Rumore at Avalanche Engineering out in Colorado. Steve cleverly designed the device into a steel toolbox, making it portable--just the ticket for someone tinkering with HHO/water/hydrogen/Brown's Gas-powered conveyances...

guess what? My fuel economy is exactly the same, whether the HHO generator is turned on or not. And that's exactly what I expected.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Good article! Popular Mechanics and Popular Science have been my favorite magazines since I was a kid. Well noted. I think my problem is, I have heard otherwise from people I know. If you have a magazine that says one thing, and mechanic friends that say another, what do you do? You build and test a system yourself. That is the only way. I don't believe any article unless I test it myself. That's just the way I am. If I fail, so be it it. If I win, then I know the people who deny such things have an agenda. Let us test and see!

originally posted by: TheChrome
If I win, then I know the people who deny such things have an agenda. Let us test and see!

If it worked as claimed cars would have them as standard - also if they worked as claimed there would be proper testing on them, but as we all know for some reason there never is any proper testing that show that they work - Funny that!

a reply to: TheChrome
Go for it, but the precision of the measurements done by popular mechanics is going to be hard for most back yard mechanics to duplicate, and there are all kinds of possibilities for bias etc which is why bedlam was clever to blind his test to eliminate the bias. I'll bet none of your buddies who told you it works have done that, am I right?

So sure test it yourself if you want, but if you aren't careful, you'll have a badly designed test that will come to the same false conclusions as your buddies. It's harder than some people think to conduct a truly objective and accurate test.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheChrome
If I win, then I know the people who deny such things have an agenda. Let us test and see!

If it worked as claimed cars would have them as standard - also if they worked as claimed there would be proper testing on them, but as we all know for some reason there never is any proper testing that show that they work - Funny that!

I don't agree with you. There are huge powers at play. Lobbyists control the planet. I have worked in finance just as much as engineering, don't kid yourself. Our planet has sufficient technology, but much of it will be squashed by politics. It is what it is.

originally posted by: TheChrome
Our planet has sufficient technology, but much of it will be squashed by politics.

So do let me guess, you believe in:-
The Orbo?
The RAR Energia gravity device?
The QEG?
The BlackLight Power device?
The E-cat?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: TheChrome
Our planet has sufficient technology, but much of it will be squashed by politics.

So do let me guess, you believe in:-
The Orbo?
The RAR Energia gravity device?
The QEG?
The BlackLight Power device?
The E-cat?

I believe in those like I believe in alien conspiracies like the rest of this board. Get lost!

originally posted by: hellobruce
So do let me guess, you believe in:-
The Orbo?

At least the Orbo had some head scratching to it.

The other stuff had been done to death or was obviously bs, and you could easily spot the cracks.

Orbo is still one of those things that can give one furiously to think. It ought to be tossed in to grad school engineering as an analysis problem.