It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Obama/Romney never say HHO or Magnets for fuel devices

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
So i've been debating in my head why Obama and Romney never talk of using HHO(water as fuel) or Magnetic propulsion devices. These technologies have been out for many years, and if im right, used by canadian power companies. I mean how many assembly jobs would we create by telling the oil companies to stuff it and accept their losses?




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Water is not fuel, it's a byproduct spent fuel. HHO is not energy efficient. Hydrolysis is not efficient, most techniques only giving 70% of the energy used to create the hydrogen, so the amount of electrical energy used to separate the h2o molecules, will be more than the energy available in the hydrogen produced.

Notice how h2o is always on the right side:


Common properties of hydrocarbons are the facts that they produce steam, carbon dioxide and heat during combustion and that oxygen is required for combustion to take place. The simplest hydrocarbon, methane, burns as follows:
CH4 + 2 O2 → 2 H2O + CO2 + Energy
In inadequate supply of air, CO gas and water vapour are formed:
2 CH4 + 3 O2 → 2CO + 4H2O
Another example of this property is propane:
C3H8 + 5 O2 → 4 H2O + 3 CO2 + Energy
CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 → (n+1) H2O + n CO2 + Energy


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 25-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by truthermantwo
 


Because they're not viable, not immediately available, and mostly scams.

HHO can add a little fuel efficiency to an already inefficient vehicle like a truck with excessive wasted horsepower, but it cannot do anything for a more efficient vehicle, and there is much more to gain by increasing the efficiency first.

The magnetics just plain don't work at all.

For electricity, there are the much more promising alternatives like solar, clean coal, and natural gas, but what we really, really need to be researching is energy conservation. Better construction techniques and materials, and more efficient use of natural light, and space, and heat transfer (i.e. insulation).



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
*Note* The "water" referred to in the Canadian energy sector is hydroelectric power, not energy from magnets or "HHO"...




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
I suggest that you posters should indulge into the actual outcomes of said devices before writing off these ideas by just the wiki bs alone.
There is a system in place to put a lid on such tech.
Before you make up your minds just inject 20 lpm of browns gas into your ride while blocking off the exhaust system and pulling the fuel relay fuse or using mumetal shielding on magnets to aim the magnetic force field of a magnet into a revolving semi conductor before arriving to such damning conclusions.

I DARE YOU

edit on 25-10-2012 by deadeyedick because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
How many assembly line jobs would it create(even if it were viable)? Probably not too many. It's much more lucrative to make stuff overseas where you don't have to pay people a lot and you don't have to worry about being "green", but everyone knows this already.

Is this why the whole "no child left behind" thing was made? It used to be that the factory workers were the high school drop-outs. If you get rid of the high school drop-outs than your can get rid of their jobs and everyone is happy? Almost every citizen is qualified to be the middle management. The rest can work the few service jobs that are left?



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Before you make up your minds just inject 20 lpm of browns gas into your ride...


20 Liters per minute is about 0.2 MJ of energy. In an hour, it could produce 12.06 MJ.

In a liter of gas there is about 34 MJ

A car rated at 50MPG (quite efficient) will get you about* 20 km on 34 MJ.

Energy denisty

In the hour it takes to get a whopping 12 MJ of energy, the car already used up 170 MJ of energy from gas. (Assuming 100km/hr)

Meanwhile, the alternator is going to be running overtime for your "HHO" production. Normally the alternator draws a load off the engine only when needed. Because you want to use electricity for electrolysis, it's going to be working overtime, and it's not very efficient in the first place.*

SO...

The alternator is going to draw about an extra 1.5 hp from the engine to be cranking out electricity needed to produce the gas, this is an extra 1.2kwh which is equal to around 4.3 MJ.

Oops, not even enough to get your 20L/Min

On youtube, someone here claims 20L/Min, but he is using 3.5 HP worth of electricity to get it...

www.youtube.com...

-

Given that an alternator is highly inefficient, the total sums are even less. But let's say you get your 4.3 MJs worth of hydrogen gas after running your car for an hour... What does that get you? Well, it gets your engine to work and extra 4.3 MJs in an hours drive.

And since a car that does about 50MPG uses 170 MJ for 100km, the 4.3 (actually less because of inefficiencies) will net you a whole whopping 2 or 3 kilometres extra in your travel.

Unfortunately, because of the extra gas used to create the energy used in hydrolysis, you can expect your mileage to either be the same or less.

edit on 25-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Water is not fuel, it's a byproduct spent fuel. HHO is not energy efficient. Hydrolysis is not efficient, most techniques only giving 70% of the energy used to create the hydrogen, so the amount of electrical energy used to separate the h2o molecules, will be more than the energy available in the hydrogen produced.

Notice how h2o is always on the right side:


Common properties of hydrocarbons are the facts that they produce steam, carbon dioxide and heat during combustion and that oxygen is required for combustion to take place. The simplest hydrocarbon, methane, burns as follows:
CH4 + 2 O2 → 2 H2O + CO2 + Energy
In inadequate supply of air, CO gas and water vapour are formed:
2 CH4 + 3 O2 → 2CO + 4H2O
Another example of this property is propane:
C3H8 + 5 O2 → 4 H2O + 3 CO2 + Energy
CnH2n+2 + (3n+1)/2 O2 → (n+1) H2O + n CO2 + Energy


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 25-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



ehhhhhhhhn I don't think he's referring to electrolysis. I think he's referring to this process, making fuel from water vapor and co2.

wattsupwiththat.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:54 AM
link   
Oh and check this out.



His machine is patented, and I suggest checking out all the youtube videos on him.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by deadeyedick
using mumetal shielding on magnets to aim the magnetic force field of a magnet into a revolving semi conductor


And I suggest you stop making crap up like this nonsense!
edit on 26-10-2012 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Oh, it appears we've killed the thread mate.

I suppose, we will have to wait while they get their pieces together.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by deadeyedick

Before you make up your minds just inject 20 lpm of browns gas into your ride...


20 Liters per minute is about 0.2 MJ of energy. In an hour, it could produce 12.06 MJ.

In a liter of gas there is about 34 MJ

A car rated at 50MPG (quite efficient) will get you about* 20 km on 34 MJ.

Energy denisty

In the hour it takes to get a whopping 12 MJ of energy, the car already used up 170 MJ of energy from gas. (Assuming 100km/hr)

Meanwhile, the alternator is going to be running overtime for your "HHO" production. Normally the alternator draws a load off the engine only when needed. Because you want to use electricity for electrolysis, it's going to be working overtime, and it's not very efficient in the first place.*

SO...

The alternator is going to draw about an extra 1.5 hp from the engine to be cranking out electricity needed to produce the gas, this is an extra 1.2kwh which is equal to around 4.3 MJ.

Oops, not even enough to get your 20L/Min

On youtube, someone here claims 20L/Min, but he is using 3.5 HP worth of electricity to get it...

www.youtube.com...

-

Given that an alternator is highly inefficient, the total sums are even less. But let's say you get your 4.3 MJs worth of hydrogen gas after running your car for an hour... What does that get you? Well, it gets your engine to work and extra 4.3 MJs in an hours drive.

And since a car that does about 50MPG uses 170 MJ for 100km, the 4.3 (actually less because of inefficiencies) will net you a whole whopping 2 or 3 kilometres extra in your travel.

Unfortunately, because of the extra gas used to create the energy used in hydrolysis, you can expect your mileage to either be the same or less.

edit on 25-10-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)


Where did you copy that nonsense from? The Alternator in most vehicles is already putting out more electricity then is being used so the excess is utilized for the electrolisis in an HHO generator and not requiring the engine to work harder. Gasoline is only about 20% efficient and most of it that you paid over 3 bucks a gallon for is going out the tail pipe or being burned in the catalytic converter with no benefit to the car.

Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power and cleaning the engine.

The arm chair scientist are to stuck on outdated and incorrect models and lacking real world experience in these matters. In an engine what we care about is how well the fuel drives the piston. To measure the energy of work the standard unit is the joule. That's about the amount of energy it takes to toss an apple vertically a foot. It's the force against the apple ( or a piston) multiplied by the distance. In general since there is a limited amount of time to complete the combustion of fuel in an engine, the speed at which it burns determines how efficiently the engine converts the fuel into power (watts)

And yes I have been running one for 3 years...




edit on 26-10-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Applause!!!!!!

Not to mention, if the system needed more energy a simple change of an alternator to a higher output system would suffice. People, put larger alternators in their 4X4's to run flood and overhead lamps all the time, larger alternators are put in vehicles that have electric compressors to run airbags, and ridiculous sound systems as well.

If you really wanted to put the effort into the vehicle it can be done.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
Where did you copy that nonsense from? The Alternator in most vehicles is already putting out more electricity then is being used


Wrong actually, it puts out just enough to run the car/charge the battery.


so the excess is utilized for the electrolisis in an HHO generator and not requiring the engine to work harder.


So you claim that no extra energy is used for electrolysis...


Hydroxy gas burns much hotter and quicker then gasoline and when introduced into the manifold acts like a catalyst to fully burn the gasoline with 80 - 90% efficiency thus increasing mileage from 20 - 80% along with more power


If that silly statement was actually true these devices would be installed by the manufacturer as standard equipment..



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

these devices would be installed by the manufacturer as standard equipment..


Wouldn't that be bad for business? Considering the automotive, and fossil fuel industries go pretty much hand in hand. They don't want to give you efficient, cheap means of transport. Isn't worth enough money.

Not to mention, you could increase battery capacity, use a larger alternator, and the more efficient fuel would make up for the minimal power consumption of the larger alternator leaving a system that is still more efficient than gasoline.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
you could increase battery capacity, use a larger alternator,


Which would increase the load on the engine...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


Okay, and if a gasoline engine has a 20% efficiency, and an HHO has an 80% efficiency, does the loss out way the gain? No, not likely.

Using your own 1.5horse figure, a 150hp motor has a 1% loss. So 79% efficiency still ballbusts the 20% every gasoline engine is burdened with. Even a 5hp alternator, or 10hp alternator. It all depends on engine size. As well, if HHO produces a more efficient platform, and MORE power, minimal mechanical stress is still worth the fuel efficiency and power. Gasoline is dying, tech and though your argument has truth it will take more energy, but you are not thinking about how much energy an engine produces. The same 1.5hp draw is there on a gasoline engine. People put larger alternators in their vehicles for various accessories they choose to run. HHO burns hotter, cleaner, faster, and produces more mechanical energy than gasoline. I fail to see how your logic makes the system a bad choice.
edit on 26-10-2012 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-10-2012 by Hijinx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by deadeyedick
 



Before you make up your minds just inject 20 lpm of browns gas into your ride while blocking off the exhaust system and pulling the fuel relay fuse


are you claiming that 20l/min delivery of your alledged browns gas - will run an engine with no other fuel ?

PS - what displacement engine , and at what rpm ????????????????????



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by deadeyedick
 



Before you make up your minds just inject 20 lpm of browns gas into your ride while blocking off the exhaust system and pulling the fuel relay fuse


are you claiming that 20l/min delivery of your alledged browns gas - will run an engine with no other fuel ?

PS - what displacement engine , and at what rpm ????????????????????


Not to mention in 2.5 minutes you've burned 50litres of fuel, and with a blocked exhaust pipe, you've effectively constructed a bomb.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hijinx
Okay, and if a gasoline engine has a 20% efficiency, and an HHO has an 80% efficiency,


But it does not....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join