Physics Prof:
Assuming the Faraday limit, can you or anyone refute the calculations in the video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn480IwYi2g
Granted if you can exceed Faraday, everything changes, but by how much? Possibly a lot more than we imagine when considering overall system efficiencies.
In the example given, the author does not even consider the cost to the system (IC engine plus alternator) of producing the HHO gas. (system petrol to electrical inefficiency)
When hooked to a feeble car alternator, which are made as cheap as possible, as a generator of electricity, an IC engine plus alternator is notoriously inefficient.
So the cost of the electricity produced is at best only about 20 to 30% efficient when considered as a system.
If the IC engine plus generator system could produce electrical energy at 100% efficiency, then you would only need to exceed the Faraday limit by a small amount to have a gain in the overall IC engine plus generator plus HHO gas generator.
But this is not the case and due to the extreme inefficiency of system electrical production, the Faraday limit must be exceeded many fold to just break even.
This needs serious discussion.
His calculations may be right,but his assumption that using a HHO system will not improve your car's MPG is incorrect.
I have seen a number of wanabe debunkers run tests with and without HHO system's,and they keep finding that the HHO system actually decreases MPG
The reason this keeps happening,is because they keep using bloody late modle car's with ECUs,and--wait for it--O2 sensors
So,when the HHO is added to the fuel/air mix,the O2 sensor tells the ECU that the car is running to lean,because the HHO allows a much cleaner and complete burn of the fuel.
So now the ECU thinks the car is running to lean,so it starts feeding the motor more fuel
, .
And so they come up with this rubbish that HHO systems actually cause your car to use more fuel.
Here is the truth ION,and the system as a whole dose not get much more inefficient than this--but still an increase in run time when the HHO system is put into use.
First up,we have a cheap carbureted chinese honda imitation 6.5HP engine--not so efficient.
Then we have a gen-e-motor from WW2 to power the cell--also very inefficient.
To top that off,we have my very first attempt at a dry cell,made from sheets cut from a S/S water tank,that were all dented--very inefficient,with an MMW of just over 3
So,in the video,we use the same metered amount of fuel in both runs.
The generator(gen-e-motor) is unloaded on the first run,and HHO cell is not powered-engine running on gasoline only.
In the second run,the generator is now loaded,as it is powering the HHO cell.
You will see a current draw of about 25 amp's,and a voltage across the cell of around 11.2v
So in the second run,we have a load of around 280watts on the generator/engine.
First run using the metered amount of fuel,no load on the engine,and no HHO=1 minute 54 seconds
Second run with same metered amount of fuel,280 watt load on the engine to run the HHO cell,and HHO included=2 minutes 11 seconds
The battery is only for starting the engine,and is disconnected once the engine is started,and never reconnected.
So,taking into account all the vast inefficiencies in the system as a whole--where did the extra 17 seconds run time come from?.
We just increased our efficiency by 14%--and that was using the worst of the worst equipment.
So,using that setup-as bad as it was,if we could run our engine for an hour on a LTR of gasoline,then it would run for 68.4 minutes,instead of 60 minutes.
Darrell !that is about to join us here soon!,run's a HHO cell in his vehicle--i'll let him tell you how much more efficient his vehicle is now--people just wouldnt leave HHO systems in there vehicles,if they did not work.
A 30% increase in efficiency is not hard to get,using a good HHO system-providing you remap the ECU if your vehicle has one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-YWHj31Y20Brad
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
Author
Topic: TinMan's "Over Faraday HV HHO production" (Read 39865 times)
