Ask Me Help Desk - Breaking laws of physics

Your information on the mole weight is noted. I hoped someone had already done some experimentation with this, but I guess not. There is one thing, though, a percentage of the gasoline in an engine never gets burned. I expect that amount varies with the design of the cylinder head, operating temperature, etc. All of the HHO would be burned. I suspect that the 1/2 would be too hot to run. Doesn't anyone out there know what the ratio is in these little hydrogen powered cars? Information that I have come across says that H2 burns in air in concentrations of 4% - 75%. Of course, the question becomes at what point does it produce significant pressure? I know it explodes with a lot of force. As the account form someone who carelessly let some build up under his hood demonstrated.
A lot of people are getting really significant mileage improvement from a small addition of HHO to the intake air. I'm just wondering how far it can be carried.

As to the figures of gasoline being 29 times as heavy as H2, wouldn't you have to divide the 29 by 2.8 to arrive at a comparison? That would be 10.35. 14.7 x 10.35 would give a fuel/air ratio of 14.7:10 or 7.5:5 or 1.5:1.

Anyway, my curiosity is piquéd. I'm going to have to experiment. Wish I coud afford an amp meter.

Thanks for your response.
Apologies to ShaunG. Didn't mean to totally hijack your thread.

Interesting discussion. Several factors that I don't think have been discussed however. Now I'm not an expert and am in to process of learning this.

When you separate H2 from H2O you already have a volume ratio of 2 parts Hydrogen to 16 Parts O which is plenty and well in the working range to run a car on Hydrogen. The octane in gasoline only retards the combustion allowing the gas to be compressed more. Hydrogen has an octane rating of about 109% Combustion of hydrogen can happen when mixed with Oxogen in a range of 4 -74%

From what I have read Hydrogen has 3x the BTU per pound and can be burned at least 3x more efficient. That's a 9x over all efficiency.

Another thing to consider is the loss of energy that exists within a alternator that spins with out generating. In most auto's you have a 12v source which is hardly used. Energy is lost here which can be recovered to create Hydrogen. 300 watts is nothing when you are already spinning a 1490 watt alternator. The same goes for power generators. Most have a 12v source that spins with out producing energy. So in the end you make the engine more effeciant.

I guess what this all boils down to is that you can increase the effeciancy of an engine buy adding hydrogen to the mix. Not sure about creating a self stastaining setup.

One last factor that might come into play. Hydrogen burns much faster then gasoline. I have read that because of this the gasoline burns more effeciant.

As for the electrolisys. Do a search on YouTube for a guy named zerofossilfuel. He is able to generate 4-5 liters of hho per minute with 400 watts. Most experimenters tend to do 2 or less. One of the big issues seems to be water temp vs production rate. Anyway again great discussion. This information is just what I have cobbled together off the net.

Just thought of another possible factor. When creating hh0 you have pure O which would allow for better combustion unlike normal air which has a large (78%)nitrogen. I have not seen any mention of this but surely it must play a big factor.

I when about figuring out how many BTUs are generated by these off the net Electrolsys setups. Using the best producer of 5 lpm and the bottom line was at best test setup only generate 119 BTUs That's it. That is only .68% of the needed BTUs consumed in a 20mpg auto. I find it hard to see how such claims can be true.

The laws of Physics are only valid until new discoveries are made to modify these laws.

Perpetual Motion exists all around us from electrons spinning around a neucules in an atom to planets spinning around the universe. Is it possible to recreate a perpetual motion devise? Possible, we have good examples. A Perpetual Motion devise would not be possible if you bind yourself to the traditional laws pf physics.

Sci_Guy: you should change your name to Sci_Fi_Guy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sci_Guy

Perpetual Motion exists all around us from electrons spinning around a neucules in an atom to planets spinning arond the universe.

Sorry - not true. The motion of electrons around neuclei will not go on forever - current estimates are that protons have a half-life of about 10^32 years on average (see: Protons and neutrons ) - that's a very, very long time (about a million billion times the age of the universe), but it's not infinite. And as the planets orbit the sun they are slowly losing angular momentum, primarily through tidal friction- which causes them to move to spiral away from the sun into lower energy orbits- see: Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sci_Guy

Is it possible to recreate a perpetual motion devise? Possible, we have good examples.

Sorry - there are no examples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sci_Guy

A Perpetual Motion devise would not be possible if you bind yourself to the traditional laws pf physics.

A perpetual motion device is not possible in the physical world we live in.