A gift for HHO Skeptics!

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by JSH

I work for a truck manufacturer. We would love to increase fuel economy 5% with HHO if it worked AND we could meet required emission requirements. However it doesn't work. As you mentioned to get improved fuel economy you have to use tuning that fails emissions. It is a deadend for ligitimate companies.

This is what I keep saying. Manufacturers would kill you and hide the body, if necessary, to get their hands on your effective, economical 5% fuel economy boost. It would steal a march on all the other players.

But they aren't killing anyone because those magical solutions are exactly that: magical. As in, fictional. They aren't real, not in the real world. And everyone already knows that the labs, however impressive the results might be there, are not the real world.

[oil pan 4]

The 5% increase probably comes from the non emissions compliant tune.

[tcaud]

Could renewable-powered electrolysis help with global warming/climate change? I mean, if you electrolyze water into hydrogen, then you have less water and more hydrogen, yes?

[JockoT]

Originally Posted by tcaud

Could renewable-powered electrolysis help with global warming/climate change? I mean, if you electrolyze water into hydrogen, then you have less water and more hydrogen, yes?

This would work perfectly. The only fly in the ointment is the fact that the efficiency of electrolysis is so poor that you would be better using your renewable energy as electricity. Storing it in a battery, to power an EV, is much more efficient than using it in a fuel cell and even more so than using it to power an ICE.

[oil pan 4]

Nothing we do is going to effect climate change.

[samwichse]

Originally Posted by tcaud

Could renewable-powered electrolysis help with global warming/climate change? I mean, if you electrolyze water into hydrogen, then you have less water and more hydrogen, yes?

So at 139,700,000 square miles of ocean, to lower the ocean level by 1" you would need to convert only 317,500 cubic miles of water to hydrogen.

Definitely a practicable solution!

[RoadTripRob]

HHO is not effective. It doesn't add up at an atomic level so any real world gains are from other factors.

[tcaud]

Originally Posted by samwichse

So at 139,700,000 square miles of ocean, to lower the ocean level by 1" you would need to convert only 317,500 cubic miles of water to hydrogen.

Definitely a practicable solution!

Imagine coastlines rimmed with conversion plants, running on solar constantly. When the sun came out they'd operate, when it was not out they'd shut down. Flash forward 300 years... they'd have an impact. Something has to be done with the polar water... it has to be frozen or disintegrated.

I'm not sure you guys grasp the gravity of the situation. There are a lot of people sitting in offices yakking the yak while making six figure incomes. Later generations... well they might not take place on account of today's lethargy.

It's not the rising oceans/increasing drought that threaten mankind. The reaction is the killer. The researchers aren't in sync, and are thinking past each other. The situation is worse than you've heard... by about 200%.

If you give that responsibility to today's OPEC nations, then that's an economic way out for them. You say that it would be better to create vast solar farms... but did you realize those farms are going to be competing with our living, agricultural and wildlife space? And further, how would you transfer the energy? Long distance transmission losses are quite severe.

And by the by, the growth of plug-in hybrids is likely to smash the power grid as it now stands. I did the math: running World of Warcraft requires 5 nuclear plants worth of power (1kw hr for top settings, 10 million players; in 10 years it'll require 2kw). Imagine how rough it will be for plants to provide 100kwh a car per week for Teslas and their clones. The output of many North American plants is no more than a gigawatt.

[Frank Lee]

Most obsess over production while paying lip service- if that- to consumption.

[oil pan 4]

Long distance transmission usually has losses of no more than 10%, using old technology.
I have been formally educated on wind and solar power generation. So I know we can not solve all our problems by building solar farms. Any one who has studied the issue in a professional capacity knows this.

I ran some numbers after fukashima nuclear power disaster , if Japan bought all the solar panels on earth it wouldn't even be enough to replace their nuclear power generation.

Plus you are worrying about how much consumers use. Consumers don't really use a whole lot of power. Where I work we use enough electricity to power a 2,500 square foot home for a family of 5 for 10 to 12 years and we use that much power every single day.
Then use some where around 2 billion BTUs worth of natural gas, every month. That's enough natural gas to heat your home for 60 winters.

Oh yeah the situation is real bad. The polar ice caps should have melted in 2010.
If past performance is any indication of future results the global warming thing is being over stated by at least 20,000%.