HODINFO IS SHUTTING DOWN IF YOU WANT ANY DATA ON THIS NETWORK THE NETWORK IS UNLOCKED. COPY IT!

.

On 03/17/2009 10:14 AM I posted this message on CR4

Our business is research and development. We have three technicians assigned part time to our HHO project. We entered the project with the assumption that it works but that it just is not safe. Our sole focus up until now was safety. We successfully completed the safety project. See http://www.hhogassavermpg.com/ . Now we are in the middle of confirming the technology and acquiring federal EPA certification. I understand CR4 to say that the technology is unproven which concerns me. Why do people’s informal tests indicate otherwise? And why has nobody convinced CR4 of this? Is the idea that new? Are we at HHOINFO being fooled? Should we drop our projects and move on?

On 03/17/2009 7:05 PM I got this reply. HOW SHOULD I RESPOND TO IT?

Are we being fooled?

That seems like a difficult position to support. Clearly you must know that the very long history of HHO devices has always (or at least since 1918) been surrounded by charges (and some convictions) of fraud. I doubt that you are being fooled.

Is the idea that new?

Even people not engaged in the business know this is not a new idea in any way, shape, or form. The first US patent for a device which functions exactly like today's devices was awarded in 1918. As you know, actually working as advertised is not a requirement for issuing a patent.

Should we drop the project and move on?

Only you can decide that. It depends upon your ethical compass. If you believe these devices work, and if you believe you have a vehicle which can demonstrate that, then go to the EPA. If their tests show that your belief has some foundation, then find out what is unique about your device (because this would be historic) patent that unique aspect, and make a business.

As far as dealing with only the safety aspect of HHO, you'd have to rely on your own market studies. Clearly, even though these devices have never been demonstrated to work by an independent agency such as the EPA, they sell very well. Are the buyers concerned about safety? Who knows? The amount of HHO that these units produce is far too small to have any effect whatsoever on engine performance. But is it possible that H2 (the O2 part simply mixes with the air as soon as the HHO is outside its duct) could accumulate under hood in sufficient concentration to go kaboom? Perhaps in a stationary car. Can you create enough fear to make a business from this aspect? Maybe. Be aware that old batteries with standard vented caps could liberate about as much H2 as an HHO unit, and did not explode frequently enough for people to be too worried.

Even sophisticated investors are not too hard to swindle. Madoff made billions. Imagine how easy it is to fool people about the effect of HHO in a country where 80% of high school graduates cannot even find Chicago on a map, let alone quote facts from a physics or chemistry textbook.

You can read my zillions of posts elsewhere but a brief summary of "reasons" why HHO works as advertised (according to promoters) is here:

1. 15% (or 20% or 30%) of the fuel goes past the exhaust valve unburned: Flat Lie. The percentage is never more than 1% either side of perfect, and is typically closer than that. Catalytic converters are damaged by values outside these limits.

2. HHO improves combustion: Misconception. The NASA study shows that injection amounts must be at least an order of magnitude higher (than HHO units produce) to have enough effect on combustion speed to have any significant effect on energy efficiency. Even this only applies when the H2 is delivered for free thermodynamically. The situation is actually much worse with electrolysis units, which consume engine power.

3. HHO simply adds additional fuel to the engine, which you get for free from the water. Flat Lie. This is the classic perpetual motion scheme, and was the standard HHO promotion lie for years. Water is not a fuel, which should be incredibly obvious to anyone who has put out a camp fire. Making H2 from water requires more energy than you can get from burning the fuel. Always, and by any method. (This is true if even if you use the highest quality electrolysis equipment, and burn the hydrogen in a calorimeter -- which measures its entire heat value. In an engine, the situation is much worse, because you only get 25% the energy converted to mechanical output.) The alternator load, and the fuel used to power it, goes up with the electrical load.

4. There is excess electricity being generated all the time by the alternator. Flat Lie. The greater the draw on the alternator, the more HP required, and the more fuel consumed. This should be obvious to anyone who has seen generators at Home Depot: big ones which (consume a lot of fuel) produce more electricity than small ones. It is also obvious to anyone who has read how a car alternator works, or who has worked on one.

5. I've developed a method for splitting water that is twice, five times or 50 times (yes there really is such a claim!) as efficient as "brute force" electrolysis. Flat Lie. A reasonably efficient HHO unit is 50% efficient. 100% efficiency is not possible, nor is any efficiency over 100%.

6. But my method "jiggles" the molecule apart with pulses of x frequency (or ac) at some frequency. I use "resonance." Flat Lie. This suggests that in the inventors corner of the world the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. It matters not whether you use tweezers or rocks, or high voltage or low, the laws of thermodynamics apply: even assuming 99% efficiency of the electrolysis process, the net loss is still large: for each ounce of fuel you consume to produce HHO, you get back 1/5 oz of energy in HHO (because, at best, the engine and alternator making the HHO is only 20% efficient.)

7. But I'm getting a 50% or 100% improvement despite the fact that you stupid science types think it does not work. Profound misconception, bad test method, mental instability, placebo effect, Flat Lie? Imagine yourself an inventor sitting on a billion dollar device but sitting around making videos on YouTube, or spending your time trying to convince CR4 members, most of whom apply science every day, that science is bogus. Plausible?

8. You stinky meany heads would have kept the Wright Brothers from flying. Profound misconception. The Wright Brothers were classic scientists, and relied heavily on aerodynamics texts by Chanute and others, and on the experience of a very long line of aviation pioneers.

9. Stanley Meyer was convicted of fraud because of the Big Oil conspiracy against him. Profound Misconception. Stanley was convicted because he was a fraud who claimed that you could run a car on water, and that he had a method which produced H2 on an over-unity basis (i.e., in violation of laws of thermodynamics).

10. I'm not proposing any kind of perpetual motion machine. Profound Misconception. For the amount of HHO generated to even creep up any where near close to the point that its effect would be measurable, the process must operate at multiples of over-unity (in which case you have a perpetual motion machine -- just plug the out put into the input and it runs forever.) In a typical engine of today, the electrolysis process would have to operate at 500% efficiency, just to get to the break even point.

11. Well, if these things operate at a net loss, then I'd see my mileage going down, but I don't. Slight Misconception. These units draw about the same current as headlights (100 watts). The effect of 100 watts is very hard to measure on engine of 150,000 watts. (Obviously the potential benefit would be unmeasurable as well.)

12. HHO is monatomic, with completely different properties than H2. Flat Lie or profound ignorance. HHO is similar to oxyacetylene -- if you crack open both valves on a torch when you light it, you get a bang. Ditto for lighting a HHO. However, when you put HHO into the intake airstream in the incredibly tiny amounts produced by an HHO "booster" the two gases separate, and all that is left as an energy difference is the tiny additional amount of H2, surrounded by and intermixed with an incredibly large amount of air with a small amount of gasoline vapor. At the instant that HHO comes out of the common duct, all you have is a tiny amount of hydrogen. Wackos claim that ultra high flame front speeds will prevail, thinking apparently that HHO remains in one place (about the size of a rain drop in the relatively huge volume of a cylinder) but It does not. It simply mixes with everything else. If it did not, it would be impossible to make the other silly claim -- that it has a measurable effect on combustion -- because only one in 500 times would that little chunk of separate HHO be anywhere near to the spark plug.

13. The HHO units makes the ECU "think" the engine is running lean, so the ECU increases the fuel flow. Therefore, you must tamper with your emission system. Flat Lie. These differences are not measurable (just as you'd expect because of the tiny amount of H2 injected) as verified by perhaps the best recent test of HHO devices, that done by Popular Mechanics. The Popular Mechanics test is particular good, because it is easily understandable, but also because it was performed by a body that is beyond independent -- they gain ad revenue from mileage improvement devices, so it is clearly in their best interest to say that these things work, not that they don't work. If you poke around HHO websites, you'll find many "reasons" why HHO can only work if you buy additional stuff: solvents, magnets, fuel heaters, etc. Ironically, some HHO sites which said that their unit worked just fine a year ago, now say that you must buy additional stuff to make them work. ("We were lying then, but now we are telling the truth.") Suckers keep coming, though.

For additional info poke around CR4. Although I thought my last post in this thread was really going to be my last on HHO devices (I've tired of going around in circles, and this seems like a waste of CR4 bandwidth.) perhaps this post will be. I hope you make the right decision regarding going ahead with your plans.

Views: 149

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi John,

For every assertion, there is the certainty of debate; for every claim, a naysayer; for every unsettling truth, a negating lie. Rarely has there been so much opposition to a cause as biting and sarcastic as those against the HHO movement. Very often, experts have been mobilized to vilify HHO proponents, and there is little to question about their credentials. We note with respect the naysayers’ extensive experience in the automotive industry, or their professional backgrounds. Anyone would tend to believe anything they say. I did, for a while.

On the other side are proponents, names like Mihaylov Milen, Barzev Kiril, Georgeous Pechlivanoglou, Zhiao Yiping, and others, and institutions like MIT, University of Oldenburg, Kiril University of Bulgaria, and others, which had been hosts to several studies on HHO. Their conclusions run counter to what naysayers have been declaring.

Ordinary people like us are left to choose whom to believe, and if we use credentials as basis, we would remain confused. What differentiates the two sides are the depth and extent of analysis of the HHO effects on the engines. The naysayers make declarations either from their desks, based on their extensive experience, or after some hasty and unsound trials. On the other side, the HHO proponents that I mentioned above had meticulously prepared and undertaken their experiments, and in very logical manner presented their conclusions. Thus, I would rather believe the latter.

I bear no grudge against the naysayers. We need them to challenge us, to compel us to do better. On the practical side, we could also refer to achievements of successful HHO builders. We also ought to read the post on the FTC challenge, and the article by Joe Shea in the American Reporter.

Debates will continue, and the only way to settle the issues is to test some units. I would invite you to come to the Philippines. I will gladly show you a few cars with HHO units installed. Otherwise some HHO Info members near you will be too glad to demo their units.
This sentance of the above message needs to be addressed "Are we at HHOINFO being fooled? " I must direct you to section 2 of the Legal terms and conditions of use of HHOINFO.

2. You understand and agree that HHOINFO is not responsible for any content posted by you or any other third party. You further understand that HHOINFO does not endorse and has no control over the content posted in the Forums by third parties, and cannot vouch for its accuracy or reliability. You also understand that HHOINFO has no responsibility to monitor the Forums for inappropriate content posted by users. Even if HHOINFO chooses, in its sole discretion, to monitor the Forums, we nonetheless assume no responsibility for the content of the postings. However, HHOINFO reserves the right to prevent you from posting content to the Forums and to edit, restrict or remove your content for any reason at any time.
John, you said, : "Now we are in the middle of confirming the technology and acquiring federal EPA certification. I understand CR4 to say that the technology is unproven which concerns me."

If you are indeed in the middle of confirming the technology, and you have assigned three technicians on the project, why don't you just have them see the project through? If you get positive gains, then who cares what the naysayers say...
I've gotta ask: Who is CR4 and why do I care what they think?

As for Stan's stuff, I've been mowing over every piece of information that has ever been released on his device. The theory is sound, but the entire system is so complex and expensive I doubt anyone would have a working prototype any time soon. The reason for his conviction was a snow ball effect coming from a failed attempt to demonstrate his system to a patent office official. Stan had left his system with a patent clerk for a short period of time(read minutes), and it no longer worked. From then on, he would not allow anyone to put their hands on his equipment under any circumstances. After the failed patent meeting, the investors demanded a marketable product by the end of the month or their investments back. He refused to take a product to market that was not ready, then refused to turnover his equipment for inspection when the lawsuit was filed. Moral of the story: Don't get investors for such an off-the-wall invention.

Something I use for those who try to prove with off the desk numbers to say HHO can not, does not and will not ever have an effect on an ICE because of the law of conservation of energy:(straight from ZFF's website)

Here's the simple math I use to stuff it in the face of "the experts" when they say we're attempting to violate the "Laws" of conservation of energy. Please feel free to use it to stuff it to them too.

1) The best I.C.E. is 18% efficient, 20% on a good day.
2) The process of brute force electrolysys today has been pushed to about 85% efficiency.

Note: Based on the 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!

We believe HHO as an additive does more than return 85% of the energy we put in to create it. We believe its 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...

Let's say we're able to translate just 10% more of the total system energy to mechanical energy. Seems like a reasonable goal. We have still not violated conservation of energy, only raised the total system efficiency from 18% 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%!


Look mommy! I made a wall of text too @_@
skysabre said:
Hi John,

For every assertion, there is the certainty of debate; for every claim, a naysayer; for every unsettling truth, a negating lie. Rarely has there been so much opposition to a cause as biting and sarcastic as those against the HHO movement. Very often, experts have been mobilized to vilify HHO proponents, and there is little to question about their credentials. We note with respect the naysayers’ extensive experience in the automotive industry, or their professional backgrounds. Anyone would tend to believe anything they say. I did, for a while.

On the other side are proponents, names like Mihaylov Milen, Barzev Kiril, Georgeous Pechlivanoglou, Zhiao Yiping, and others, and institutions like MIT, University of Oldenburg, Kiril University of Bulgaria, and others, which had been hosts to several studies on HHO. Their conclusions run counter to what naysayers have been declaring.

Ordinary people like us are left to choose whom to believe, and if we use credentials as basis, we would remain confused. What differentiates the two sides are the depth and extent of analysis of the HHO effects on the engines. The naysayers make declarations either from their desks, based on their extensive experience, or after some hasty and unsound trials. On the other side, the HHO proponents that I mentioned above had meticulously prepared and undertaken their experiments, and in very logical manner presented their conclusions. Thus, I would rather believe the latter.

I bear no grudge against the naysayers. We need them to challenge us, to compel us to do better. On the practical side, we could also refer to achievements of successful HHO builders. We also ought to read the post on the FTC challenge, and the article by Joe Shea in the American Reporter.

Debates will continue, and the only way to settle the issues is to test some units. I would invite you to come to the Philippines. I will gladly show you a few cars with HHO units installed. Otherwise some HHO Info members near you will be too glad to demo their units.

CR4 asked me to produce the MIT study which shows that electrolysis units, powered by an automobile's alternator (commonly known as HHO boosters) significantly improve fuel efficiency in spark ignition engines installed in automobiles. CR4 says this is great and stunning news! CR4 continues by saying, finally, after all the hoaxes and fraud prosecutions, a real functioning HHO unit! (CR4 hopes that you are not referring to the Arvin Mentor work -- because that would be really embarrassing for me, so CR4 says. Nocerra's work would be even more embarrassing, because it directly supports the science that CR4 folks, and engineers and scientists everywhere, support. Several scammers have shown up at CR4 claiming that the MIT Arvin Mentor study had something to do with HHO -- but I'm sure you are referring to something else.) CR4 is really excited by this great news!

Please provide the link to the MIT study!

Can't tell you how much I appreciate your bringing the MIT study to light.
Hi JOe,

Sending you three for the time being. I will try to find the MIT study which does not bear the names of the two people you mentioned. For the time being, please look these over. Maybe you have them already, but just in case.
Attachments:
Some more here, Joe,

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f19ce67/137

Still looking for the MIT study that isn't about plasma.
This book ISBN # 0262620529 Scientific Discovery: Computational Explorations of the Creative Processes
Might have some info in it I haven't read it but it pops up when you type in HHO into the MIT website.
Here is the link on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Discovery-Computational-Exploratio...
skysabre said:
Some more here, Joe,

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f19ce67/137

Still looking for the MIT study that isn't about plasma.
That link was malformed so I fixed it http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f19ce67/137
I went back and forth with one of their "members" this afternoon

Either blinders, rocks for grey matter or just unable to comprehend and does not want to step outside his comfort zone... (small box)

What do you say.... Absolutely nothing... their in a world of their own.
I'd like to see the day when their neighbors would be saving fuel and they are not; when all of the USA would be on HHO and they are not.

OK, too much to dream of. I'd rather get back to work than spend precious time arguing.
AS everyone knows theory only works on paper to a point.if hydrogen was not a strong energy supplement then I guess the H-bomb was a fluke also.I have seen several vehicles that prove that HHO technology when you apply it correctly works and produces results.Auto engines were never intended to run on a liquid form of fuel because so much gas gets wasted in heat transfer and loss power,that is why the government had to put emissions on the vehicles to clean up the pollutants that the vehicle leaves behind.HHO vehicles put out almost no pollutants and get better gas mileage without all the emission garbage our government forced on the car makers. I was a mechanic for 10 yrs so I do know vehicles and have seen how theory and practical application in the real worls don,t always work as on paper designs.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

*** Translate HODINFO ***

© 2019   Created by gabet123.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service

Live Chat