I think it's a great idea! It would give travelers more notice of the potential danger with time to slam the brakes. The problem is deers freeze when they see headlights. But still it would be better because the traveler would see it. The e deer would freeze... eventually he'll go. All you got to do is be slam your brakes on, beep the horn, shut the lights off or blink the lights and then maybe the deer would move along but at least the traveler would have notice and time.
That's basically what happened to the family member I mentioned. She said, more than once, if she would have had another fraction of a second to hit the brakes she would have avoided the accident altogether. There's a lot of people who would probably shoot this idea down, but that's because they've never hit a deer. Thank you for weighing in!
The main problem behind so many things in life now is what our founding fathers were most worried about. A large CENTRALIZED government that will eventually become corrupt and all intrusive. We are there. Once income tax was started, with good intention, it was the beginning of the end. A fair and unbiased media kept the monster at bay for a while but that was over once they became corrupt activists dominated by a certain mindset. Now they are in bed with totalitarian minded politicians, public school teachers, college professors, celebrities and other elites that will be gods in the new world that has formed were practically all will depend on the Gods as only those who chose not to work did earlier. Decent people were sleeping, partying, being cool or just did not want to offend those who supposedly needed the governments protection and financial help perpetuating this cancer to come about. Now, our younger generation has been so completely brainwashed that they will turn on their own parents and grandparents as media and academia tells them to. There is zero chance for freedom, justice or opportunity in this countries' future. At least we will all be poor, hungry and equal!
I agree with 99 percent of what you're saying. And I think you would forgive me for the other 1 percent. I don't think income taxation was started with good intention. The only fair taxation is consumption based and voluntary. And I wonder if any media system anywhere or any time was honest. Otherwise I'm totally on board with what you're saying. We COULD get out of this, but I wonder if people are capable of doing it. Many thanks for weighing in.
I couldn’t agree more with your statements. I’m developing an overunity generator using magnetics. Once completed I’m planning to mass produce it and offer it globally
I am. As it would take very little power to move this vehicle. A 53 foot semi has a maximum legal weight of 120 thousand pounds and is moved by a 600 horsepower engine. And it moves at highway speeds. This means that a 2000 pound car would need to have a 10 horsepower engine to have the same performance. It would simply need to have a transmission that is as efficient as the semi transmission. A little more math reveals that a 300 pound vehicle would need about 2 horsepower. This could come from an engine that would weigh ten pounds or less. Especially if it was made of Torlon, which is a plastic that has been used in racing engines. Good to hear from you.
No snow accumulation. Structural advantages . It would also be interesting to see if it accumulates energy like other pyramids. I've seen fruit last twice as long under a copper pyramid. Imagine the irony of building this in Alexandria, Ohio.
@@Ron-yj4rh I don’t know anything about Alexandria, Ohio. Probably worth checking out. Also, I was thinking I wouldn’t have to clean out gutters and get up on a ladder because everything would runoff
@@sherrimathers2497 Interesting that you brought up ladders. A ladder could be integrated into the side of the house without being too obvious. It could be hand and feet ports in the corners. So, if you did need to get up high, no need to break out a ladder.
Thank you. Having looked at your channel, I think we want the same thing. I would love to see more people take on things like this. If you can't get a part, design it, and make it. Its the way of the future.
I'm going to be honest. Everything I ever found that went into depth about this subject was written by Mr. Lyne. I'm not sure if he's still living because he was getting up there in years back when we were trading E-mails. I was going to try to do this myself by energizing some stainless steel plates. One plate would be energized with high voltage/high frequency alternating current. The other plate is energized with high voltage direct current. The plates are arranged in a sandwich. Are you into airplanes? All airliners use something called an APU or Auxiliary Power Unit. It produces alternating current at 400 cycles per second. (household AC is 60 cycles per second). I have a theory that these APUs were developed to power MHD aircraft and are also used to power airliners to provide a cover story for their existence. Tesla developed the ignition coil for the model T, which could also be used to power some of his experiments. I'll dig into this a little more to see if I can find any information. Your feedback, by itself, made it worthwhile to make this video. It's greatly appreciated.
Killing it!!! Sorry Ms. Jackson…ewwww I am for real, never meant to make your daughter cry. I apologize a trillion times. Mixed with a little Lauryn Hill. Takes me back to my youth
Would having longer nozzles on each side improve torque output using the same effect that wenches use? Doesn't really matter if yours is meant for speed though.
I would guess there would be several variables to play with. It would probably work better as a friction drive. I think you're right. The nozzles could be made longer by either decreasing the inside diameter of the boiler or increasing the outside diameter of the drive hub. Many thanks for the feedback.
The starting point would be a really neat book called "Occult Aether Physics" by William R. Lyne. The propulsion system is actually fairly simple. When Tesla designed it, he designed it around his bladeless turbine coupled with his high frequency alternator. Imagine two steel plates, one above the other. One is charged with high voltage AC, the other high voltage DC. That's the core of MHD. Thank you for the feedback.
MHD was developed by Nicola Tesla. Some might call it a "UFO" propulsion system. If you wanted to dig a little deeper into it, there's a book author named William Lyne who wrote several books about it. I took one of my first videos and divided it into three videos so anyone watching this could take in more details of each one. The music is by Patrick Patrikios. The title should show up in the description soon. Thank you for the feedback.
Cause engineers design throw away products form the penny pincher cooperations, that are not even designed to be serviceable any more, so to remove one simple parts some times it means you have to tear apart half the car to replace one stupid part.
Exactly. We could have brand new cars for less than 10 grand, which would be a great boost for the economy. Instead, we have rolling mortgages. It has to end somewhere, and, from what I'm seeing, it won't end well. Thanks for weighing in.
Some wild claims in this video! You need to substantiate your claims with evidence..."Al can, being that it's an anhydrous metal...energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline". First, explain what you mean by anhydrous? And explain the statement about energy availability? Anyway, I'd love to see your calculations as I may be wrong. According to mine this concept won't work for anything outside of a mildly convenient method of very small scale Hydrogen generation. Works toilet bowl cleaner has hydrochloric acid in it, not sulfuric. Not that it really matters for the following. 1 mole of AL = 27g. Al can: 15g. Molar qty of Al: 15/27 = 0.56. Reaction: 2Al+6HCl→2AlCl3+3H2. You need 6/2 = 3 times as many HCL molecules as Al atoms for Hydrogen to be released. To convert 0.56 moles of Al into AlCl3 and release some Hydrogen you need 3 x 0.56 = 1.68 moles of HCL. 1 mole of HCL = 36.5g. Required qty of HCL is 1.68x36.5 = 61.32g. Works is a 9.5% HCL, so you need 100 / 9.5 * 61.32 = 645.5g of it, about 2/3 = 0.67 of a bottle. For this entire transaction, assuming all of the Al has reacted, you receive a total of 3 x 0.56 = 1.68 moles of H2. 1 mole of H2 is 2g. You receive 1.68 * 2 = 3.36g of H2. A Toyota Miira uses 550g of Hydrogen per 100km. So you will be able to drive 3.36 / 550 * 100 = 0.611km, or 611m. To drive 100km you will need 100 / 0.611 = 164 aluminium cans, and 100 / 0.611 * 2/3 = 246 bottles of works. And what do you do with all of the left over AlCl3? Make bulk deodorant?
The claims, I admit, would have to be substantiated by actually building one. I also admit that I'm not basing my projections on first hand knowledge. I've been told that an aluminum can can actually yield the energy content of 3 GALLONS of gasoline. So I assumed that sticking to one gallon was safe. When I make these videos, part of me is hoping that someone out there might duplicate what I've drawn and try it themselves. Please also consider that my claims may actually be pessimistic. For example, the can might be FREE. So even if the can only yields the energy of a half gallon of gasoline, this would still be an experiment worth pursuing. Thank you very much for the feedback.
How does the can yield energy at all?? You have been told? Do you actually understand the basic reactions that are occuring here? I literally laid the math out for you, this is not viable. 164 Al cans and 246 bottle of works vs my 16kwh per 100km, good luck!
@@suodrazah6015 When I was younger, my friends and I would make something called a "Works bomb". We could crumble up some aluminum foil, put it in bottle with some Works, and seal the bottle tight. The expanding hydrogen would cause the bottle (preferably plastic) to explode. The gas is hydrogen. Now, to be clear, the reaction isn't producing energy, but the burnable hydrogen can be used to power an engine. If I were to build this, the first step would be to quantify the energy by coming up with a mechanism to burn the hydrogen that could measure the heat, maybe a calorimeter.
Hey everybody. Just wanted to drop a big thank you everyone watching the video. Giving credit to the mysterious RU-vid algorithm, this is my "best" video. It has twice as many dislike as likes. It seems that it's really good at upsetting people, which is far from what I intended with it. The story behind the video is simple. I have a ton of images on my computer that I can use as thumbnails because I draw my thoughts. A lot of these drawings are one step above a napkin sketch. I think it took me all of 15 minutes to make this. But look at what happened. I'm thrilled that this started a dialogue. I would also like to use this as an opportunity to invite everyone who watched the video to watch some of my other videos. There might be something there you find interesting. Thanks again.
Isn't a normal HHO generator plate setup like 40% efficient? I don't see how that could work. You're just wasting energy. Gas doesn't need any help burning. The gas vehicle may go further, but consume far more energy than the EV. I believe PHEVs are the best efficiency at the moment. If we got revolutionary battery technology and built more nuclear power plants and infrastructure, EVs would take the lead due to supply/demand energy costs and gas will fade out. We're a ways away from that becoming reality.
Gas doesn't need help burning. But crude oil needs help getting to a gas pump. I give you credit for looking at the bigger energy picture, but we need to be sure we're looking at all of it. The whole HHO thing baffles me. Ultimately, the best set up would be to use some form of galvanic coupling and not make actual contact with the water. This would solve the problem of conductivity and corrosion. Thank you for the comment, by the way.
I am not sure why the youtube algorithm is pushing your videos, but here I’m a chemist so I’ll bite. Your video title says which has more range but your audio says which is more taxing. By taxing do you mean which has greater range or like, wear on the battery?
I'll throw some truth on you, here. I am bewildered by the fact that this video is going to be my first video to hit 400 views. I have 26 other videos and many of them are better than this. The thumbnail is awful. This was just a crap shoot as I've only been on RU-vid a little over a month. I meant which vehicle is going to travel a greater distance on a charge. It seems logical that the HHO vehicle will travel further, assuming the system is optimized. Thank you for the comment by the way. I never realized this video would actually attract comments by professional people. I honestly assumed nobody would watch the video.
@@Ron-yj4rh why is it logical that the HHO system is more efficient (will travel further), explain your reasoning? The HHO is (tested, measured and accepted fact) less efficient than the pure EV,, the only way the HHO system can become more efficient than the pure EV is if the electrolysis process is more than 100% efficient - thermodynamics prohibits this.
@@Ron-yj4rh haha, yeah the algorithm certainly works in odd ways. Maybe EVs are just trending and your videos got picked up in that wind. Okay so we are considering total range. I assume we should ignore all the other car bits and assume the vehicles are otherwise equivalent except for the engine. One contains a battery pack holding a certain amount of energy hooked directly to an electric motor like a typical EV, while the other contains the same battery back except hooked up to a hydrolysis apparatus which then feeds an internal combustion engine. I’m no car engine expert but I believe I’ve heard of hydrogen combustion powered vehicles in the past, although hydrogen fuel cells powering batteries started to make more sense. But I see no issues with either setup functioning. Side story: I used to really think hydrogen was going to be the future. I had a professor back at UNC who was part of a research group trying to develop a catalyst which could reduce hydrogen in water to a hydrocarbon powered by sunlight which would have been a super cool way to generate basically solar fuels. unfortunately I couldn’t get in his research group. Anyways, so for range we must consider the amount of work able to be performed by each setup. I imagine the combustion engine in the hydrolysis setup would weigh more than an electric engine and there would be a range reduction there but we can ignore that. The maximum amount of work for each setup is going to be basically how much useful energy they can transfer to the wheels. The absolute upper limit will be the energy capacity of the battery as this is where all the energy is coming from and the setups are just converting that energy into different kinds. So if we assume both setups are 100% efficient at all steps then they would both have the same useful energy and same range. Therefore, and other people have stated this too, it’s a question of efficiency. Unless do you believe I am missing some consideration? Otherwise, the electric engine would have much better range as it is incredibly more efficient than an ICE at converting it’s electric potential energy into kinetic energy than an ICE is at converting the chemical fuel’s potential energy into kinetic energy, not to mention some additional losses for the hydrolysis step. I’ve always seen the benefit of hydrogen as being a renewable fuel source, fuel being a more convenient store of energy than a battery. But by bringing along the battery with you to perform hydrolysis, it looks like you’re adopting the downsides of both ICE (poor efficiency) and EVs (a heavy, expensive battery which degrades over time). What advantages are you thinking of?
However you might want to measure or describe it, the EV system is less taxing on the battery. Converting electrical energy to first transform water into HHO, and then converting it a second time to mechanical energy using an ICE is not more efficient than using electrical energy to drive a simple induction motor. Not to mention regen and maintenance. Are you going to build this? Regardless of practical functionality it's still a cool concept to bring to reality.
@@Ron-yj4rhI wasn't going to say anything at all but your replies to other people that are trying to help you understand basic principles are coming off as dogmatic. You have centuries of knowledge at your fingertips and yet still choose to ignore basic facts. It would take you like one week to get up to speed on any physics course
@@eugeneputin1858 I have centuries of information at my finger tips. Not all of it could fairly be called knowledge. I think if there was a point that I was trying to make with this video it's that the optimal model is never pursued. And I have to ask, if you think this video is mediocre, why did you watch it? I ignore a ton of videos on RU-vid that aren't worth my time to watch. This video was a fluke. I was, for the most part, just throwing it together. Oddly enough, a lot of people thought it was worth watching. At least compared to my other videos.
The electric will go about 3.8 times farther than the HHO-ICE setup. An electrolyzer,(HHO system) is at best, 70% efficient, the ICE is at best, 30% efficient. the total conversion from electrical energy from the battery to wheels, is only about 21%. On the upper vehicle, the electric motor and inverter is about 80% efficient. (motor, 85%, inverter, 94%) This does not include regenerative braking. Being that most electric vehicles have regenerative braking, they can literally put "gas back in their tank" using the motor as a generator to charge the battery when slowing, or descending a hill. If you consider that, the electric will go between 4 and 4-1/2 times farther on one charge of the 120 volt battery of same capacity.
@@Kaizen712 Correct. Kind of. ICE is thermally inefficient. UNLESS you change the fuel used. Check out Paul Pantone's GEET System some time. And thank you for the comment.
@@Ron-yj4rh The maximum efficiency of any heat engine is: Emax=(T high - T low)/ T high So to get an efficiency comparable to an EV you either have to get the hot side of the ICE really hot or the cold side (which is ambient for an ICE vehicle) really cold. It doesn't matter the fuel wrt the maximum efficiency. That's just the way it is.
@@Ron-yj4rh I'm basing it on the PEM (Proton Exchange Membrane) produced by Siemens. They are claiming up to 80% efficiency, but, those systems are bigger than the car! Unfortunately, there is no system on the market that is compact enough to fit in a car, and be able to convert enough wattage into enough hydrogen fuel, to run an automobile engine.
I mean an HHO system can work, splitting water via electrolysis isn't magical by any means. But the energy output is going to be less than the energy input and that is absolute. That said a quick google search shows the efficiency of electrolysis is somewhere in the 70% range, and then there's the efficiency of the engine which is somewhere in the 30% range (granted this is based on gasoline, I'm not sure what HHO engines efficiency ratings are, you mentioned ICE and not fuel cell so I assume somewhat similar), so that would translate to 21% efficiency overall, versus about 60-80% for putting the electricity directly to the electric motors attached to the wheel. Yeah, I'd say the direct drive electric is going to be a considerably larger range.
How is that "absolute"? Let's say, as a purely hypothetical, you have a 10 horsepower engine. How much energy is needed to split two hydrogen molecules from an oxygen molecule? Is it all 10 horsepower? That is far from a simple question because it depends on so many variables. If someone uses a perfect blend of tuned voltage with perfect electrodes (or even better, some form of galvanic coupling) then the energy required to do the work is definitely going to be lower. Then take into consideration that Stanley Meyer ran an HHO car with nothing but the cars electrical system. Later on, Paul Pantone would do the same thing with even simpler technology. I very much appreciate your feedback, btw.
Wth is this guy on.... Lol you do know HHO generators use more energy to create the gas than they will gain form combustion! Why are you bringing up a 20 year old lie that was dismissed so long ago...... Stop wasting your time rambling.
@@Ron-yj4rh any and all of them! I guess you think a hydrogen car is better than an electric car right ? I guess wasting electricity and energy to produce a fuel that ultimately returns less efficiency into the system is productive to you? There are no perpetual motion machines, free lunches or pipe dreams. All you really need to learn is real science, conservation of energy, law of thermal dynamics , physics! Then you will know and understand that HHO Generators on a combustion vehicle is a joke. The only thing HHO could be used for really is some neat little torches or other purposes than fuel for a vehicle. Sure you could use solar power to store it up instead of a battery. But you better have them separated as hydrogen one tank and oxygen in another as it's extremely dangerous left together.
Range is determined by the amount of energy stored, not the voltage. So the voltage matters less and the kw/h value is more relevant. But if by ICE you mean it's a gas car with HHO range extender then you have to factor in how much fuel is in the car's fuel tank to calculate the range. By then you're comparing apples and oranges as the energy stored in a gas fuel tank need to be taken into consideration in the comparison. On a car with a 12 gallon tank, that's 12 / 0.03 = 400kw/h of energy according to Department of Energy's fuel property comparison. So assuming that you spend 10kw/h on a battery to power a HHO system to extend the ICE car's range, you're looking at spending 410kw/h of energy total. An efficient ICE car with a 12gallon tank at 35mpg would get you 420miles. If a closed loop HHO system actually does anything (a not so hotly debated topic) and can achieve the typical claimed range boost of 30% from commercials, you're looking at a total range of 546miles with the same amount of energy. If you put a 410kw/h battery in an electric car like the Model 3, in theory the car would be pretty damn heavy, but not taking added weight into consideration, the car would now get 1600miles of range. Now assuming the increased curb weight of 4000lbs would decrease the range by 30% (added weight without increasing air drag), you're still looking at 1120miles of range. But more importantly is the topic of how good an HHO system is. There's no scientific proof of a closed loop HHO system making history. If it's that good, be rest assured that every single ICE car company would be deploying it to combat the EV competition.
Honestly, I think this is something university should throw at their engineering department. We know that vehicles have been developed that can run on an open loop HHO system Once you create some working model, it's just a matter of refining it. Thank you for your feedback. Being a relatively new RU-vidr, it's quite valuable.
@@Ron-yj4rh when I was studying in mechanical engineering I was also interested in various technologies that might extend the efficiencies of ICE’s. Unfortunately HHO cannot extend an engine’s range as all things being equal the system still require to adhere to the first law of thermodynamics. There is an amount of energy required to run the HHO, and there is an energy loss in generating the hydrogen, while the provided hydrogen can boost the combustion cycle but the boost will need to exceed the amount of voltage required to run the HHO system. Unfortunately that was never achieved in any scientific studies.
In this story problem, fuel capacity is irrelevant. He stated that the fuel would be produced in real time, using the HHO system powered by the battery. Using an electrolyzer, about 70% efficient, to fuel an engine, about 30% efficient yields an overall conversion efficiency of about 21% from electrical energy to mechanical energy. When you count the losses in the controller and motor, the electric is closer to 80% efficient. If you don't count regenerative braking, which is not available from an ICE engine, the electric will go about 3.8 times farther on a charge of the battery than the HHO-ICE setup. With regenerative braking, figure closer to 4.5 times more range, all other things equal.
@@Ron-yj4rh Honestly, I have an engineering degree and no, this is not something an engineering department at a university will be interested in. To be an engineer, you need to have a good understanding of physics, including basics like thermodynamics. You also need to be able to ballpark an idea to help decide if it's even worth pursuing further. There are a variety of ways you can ballpark this scenario, all of which show that this idea is almost certainly a non-starter. The EV will far outperform your ICE-HHO vehicle. If you are even vaguely aware of the typical efficiency of the main processes involved in your proposal, electrolysis of water is typically around 70-80% efficient in a well designed and built electrolytic cell. A good, modern internal combustion engine achieves efficiencies in the 20-40% range with a maximum theoretical efficiency of around 50%. A modern, well designed permanent magnet synchronous motor as found in many modern EVs may achieve efficiencies comfortably above 90%. So given that you have two processes pulling energy from the battery, both of which are less efficient than the electric motor alone, you should already expect the EV to be better on range. We could also look at reasonably achievable ICE range for a given amount of energy. A hydrogen fueled engine won't achieve significantly different energy efficiency than one fueled by petrol/gasoline, diesel and similar fuels. A modern ICE vehicle would be lucky to achieve a highway fuel efficiency rating as low as 5L/100km. Most contemporary vehicles will be in the 6-10L /100km range, but even if we assume a super efficient, modern compact car that gets fuel consumption as low as 5L/100km that's a lot of energy compared to what an EV uses. 5L of petrol/gasoline contains about 171MJ of energy. You'll need to supply an amount of fuel from your electrolyzer containing at least 171MJ to get yourself 100km. That's a hypothetical car that uses 5L/100km. I drive a Hyundai Kona Electric. The standard ICE Kona can manage about 7.5L/100km on the highway, so that's 256.5MJ for every 100km. By comparison, my Kona Electric has a virtually identical chassis and body and is about 200kg heavier yet it uses between about 15-20kWh/100km on the highway. Taking the high end of this range, that's about 72MJ per 100km. This is about 42% of the energy consumption for the hypothetical super-efficient compact car that probably doesn't exist and only 28% of the best case consumption for a "equivalent" ICE vehicle. To put that in perspective, the worst case consumption figures for my Kona Electric would produce a range per unit of energy that is 3.56 times higher than the equivalent ICE Kona. If you're thinking that this seems weird because the ICE Kona on a full tank has a longer range than the Kona Electric on a full charge, that's because a full tank of gas contains a lot more energy than the Kona Electric's battery. An ICE Kona has either a 47 or 50L tank. 50L of petrol/gasoline contains about 475kWh of stored chemical potential energy. By comparison, my Kona Electric's battery is only 64kWh, but I can still do around 400km on that amount of stored energy. In your proposal, the only source of stored energy for your ICE-HHO vehicle is the battery, not some tank of chemical fuel that stores way more energy than any battery could. We could dig into this more, but the more you dig, the more you'll find reasons that favour the EV over the ICE-HHO vehicle, such as: 1. The ICE drivetrain will be heavier than the EV drivetrain by a large margin. EV motors and transmissions are much smaller and lighter than ICE drivetrains. The only reason why EVs are heavier is the battery, but you've put the same battery in your ICE-HHO vehicle, so now the balance tips in favour of the EV since the rest of it's drivetrain and associated equipment is significantly lighter than the ICE drivetrain and associated equipment. Heavier vehicles will use more energy to travel the same distance, so if the available energy is fixed, this acts to decrease the range of the ICE-HHO vehicle when compared to the EV. 2. The ICE drivetrain will be more complicated, requiring more gears and therefore is likely to lose more energy to friction in the drivetrain. Specifically, the ICE vehicle will require a gearbox with multiple gears and some kind of clutch or similar mechanism to allow the engine to continue spinning while the vehicle is stopped. By comparison, the EV requires no clutch and most EVs only have a single, simple fixed gear because electric motors don't need to keep spinning all the time and have a rev range that covers the entire operating envelope of the car while providing relatively high torque across that entire range. Increased frictional losses in the ICE drivetrain mean a further expected decrease in range for the ICE-HHO vehicle relative to the EV. 3. Regenerative braking. Virtually all commercially sold modern EVs have regenerative braking, which means that when slowing down or rolling down hills, the car can reclaim some of the energy previously used and put it back into the battery for later use. This increases the range of the car relative to a similar car without regenerative braking. Now, you do have the same large battery in your ICE-HHO vehicle and you are using an elaborate system to move the car using the energy stored in that battery, so maybe you think that you'll just add regenerative braking to the ICE-HHO vehicle. I expect this will probably be better than not having regenerative braking, but to do so, you'll need to add more weight to your ICE car that the EV does not need to add. See, the EV gets regenerative braking mostly for free. It already has the battery and the electric motor can act as the generator for regen braking. You do need some additional electronics, but those same electronics will need to be added to your ICE-HHO vehicle. The difference is that your ICE-HHO doesn't have a large electric motor/generator that can be used to apply a reasonable braking force to the wheels while converting your kinetic energy into electrical energy, so you'll need to add one, which will be roughly the size and weight of the EV's electric motor. So basically you either don't have regen braking and fall behind the EV because whenever you brake, you bleed off your energy into the surrounding air as heat or you have regen braking, but suffer the cost of that even more additional weight that you have to lug around. Both of these cases should be expected to reduce your range compared to the EV. This has already gone far further than any engineer is likely to consider this. HHO generators are not magic devices. There's a reason why they're not mainstream and it has nothing to do with some conspiracy by big oil or big automotive. It's because it's a bad idea that doesn't work as claimed. Talking about HHO generators is a good way to signal to the people around you that you struggle with understanding basic physics, but as someone else said, if you think all of us engineers are shills or have been brainwashed by big physics, go ahead and build one, measure it's performance and prove us all wrong.
It depends on numbers. You didn't go over what you think the numbers are so it's a worthless video. An interesting thought, but you are getting a little aggressive/defensive basically telling people they aren't allowed to tell you it doesn't work. How, if you haven't built such a system, can you assert that it does? It's a symmetric argument. If you want people to respect your capacity to assess an abstract problem maybe you should respect their capacity as well. But that's not the route you went. They need to have built such a system to have an opinion, yet you haven't and are entitled to one. I follow the silver rule. Judge people by their own standards. Go build one and then you can upload videos about the subject.
I am utterly bewildered by this video in regards to how RU-vid placed it with viewers. I'll confess this is not my best video. This is a thought that was burning a hole in my head. So I threw this video together quickly and tossed it out into the stream. And to be clear, I have zero issue with someone telling me that it doesn't work. But please explain how you came to that conclusion. I think you have a great point regarding building one. I think some college should be building one of these to test the theory. I bet you would agree with me that our transportation has some issues that need to be sorted out. This video has gotten 2 dislikes so far, which, to me was great. Not because I set out to upset anyone, but because it was put in a place where enough people could see it to dislike it. Thank you for the comment, The feedback will help me make better videos.
I've not had to have created a similar system to understand that the HHO system is terribly inefficient. Being generous. this would have approximately a 15% equivalent range of the pure electric system. - If insisting on on board conversion then you'd be better off using a fuel cell and electric drive with energy buffer and regenerative braking than the ICE. - Storing H2, rather than conversion to HHO on the fly, could double your range - more space due to no generator, lower weight, 40% higher energy storage efficiency vs on board conversion. There are a myriad of functional other flaws with this design.
Personally I think we should be maintaining petroleum existing trucking and refueling infrastructure. But convert the trucks to H2 transport, and provide megawatt scale fuel cells at the refueling stations. The fuel cells can provide energy for rapid EV recharging. This could be particularly useful in areas like mine where the HV infrastructure will take aeons to catch up to the additional demand.
I'd like to share with you how glad I am to be getting some feedback from one of my videos. I would have to point out that, until someone creates the system, there's no way of knowing for sure. We know there are several things that can be done to optimize this system that has yet to be done. I've seen people get insane production volume of HHO from a single 12 volt battery. Perhaps the next step for me is to create the system Thank you again for the feedback.
@@Ron-yj4rh In my opinion the only benefit of the HHO system over fuel cell is that you require less material to store H2, which is a pain - being the smallest atom and all. The fuel cell and EV systems are much more efficient than the HHO system in no small part due to the availability of regenerative braking, it is a big commitment of time building this for anything other than proof of concept as it is unlikely to be functionally effective. Consider the limited energy you will have available in the physically limiting battery vs the energy available in the same volume/mass of petroleum or stored H2, additionally you're further reducing the electrical energy availability by first having to provide HHO conversion prior to the ICE energy conversion cycle. Why not consider building a home H2 generator and using it as energy storage for use in fuel cell or EV? If you are going to build this I am interested in the wider design concept. Coincidentally I was driving my hydro powered EV behind a Toyota Mirai today. This reminds me of a small vehicle I designed about 20 years ago when in high school, but rather than a large on board battery it used a small solar array to generate HHO in a closed loop with a large buffer for on demand use in a converted combustion engine. We never built it but I won a trip to see some politicians, my least favourite people 😆. We also did some experiments around electrolysis, cell efficiency testing, etc, in conjunction with the local university and their much nicer equipment. I won an awesome lab power supply from that, which I have sadly since lost and think about more often than I should.
I made a design where the central disks do not connect to the main shaft, but rather only to the pins on the sides, while only two disks on each side of 5mm holds them to the center shaft, removing obstructions from the exit hole and making it more efficient
I have a video in the works with a modified version of Hero's Aeolipile. It's simpler than this and uses a design that integrates everything into one piece. I want to apologize to you because, honestly, I made this video based on your comments on part one. I narrated the video but the sound was so bad I just added some music and tried to explain it as best I could in the description. Being new to RU-vid is a never ending game of trying to improve. Thank you for watching the video.
@@Ron-yj4rh While it's great to see that you made something new, I don't think you should go through the path of the hero's steam engine, it's very inneficient, and isn't a closed system
@@giovannicesaramorim9adigan961 Correct in that the original engine was not a closed loop. It could be modified into a closed loop system with a friction drive. I'll show this in the video.
@@Ron-yj4rh Also, I think that you shouldn't be striving for low pressure here, as while it could be theoretically run on low pressure, it would lose a lot of horsepower. The transmission is also a bit bigger than necessary (if the cylinder part after the square is the planetary gears), as I think 1 set is already enough for 1:10, so that space could be used for more stages of a tesla turbine
@@giovannicesaramorim9adigan961 I would love to run this through a generative design program to eliminate all potential waste and make it as light as possible.