So... There are many sites on the internet bashing HHO and how it "violates" the laws of physics. They say that it takes more energy to create the HHO than you will get on a return in your pocket by getting better gas mileage. Well I'll explain why they are ALL WRONG!
Do you know how efficient your internal combustion engine is? Well, by the time the gasoline burns and gets the motor turning, the transmission moving the wheels turning, the average engine ONLY GETS about 15% efficiency (Found on FuelEfficiency.gov government website here: Engine Efficiency Yes... Only 15%. All that heat, all that friction, all that weight, all those moving parts, electronics and all that drag. It all counts. Especially most of the "burn" in the cylinder does not even complete. That's why there are all these "Platinum" spark plugs that try and make the gas fully burn.
HHO uses brute force electrolysis which is about 85% efficiency. So if we inject HHO that we produce as a supplement then YES, we conserve energy!
HHO is an additive which burns SO FAST and Hot, it enhances the slow burning gasoline and speeds up the rate of combustion causing more total combustion to the process which translates to mechanical energy of the engine. It burns the gasoline better raising the efficiency of the engine. So, if we are able to raise the efficiency of the engine only 10%, we're now getting 25% efficiency. That's a 55% increase!! So if you deduct around 15% to create the HHO and you're still getting 40%.
I learned this information from my good friend Bob Volk. He went head to head with Popular Mechanics challenging them to a better test and they have not responded... yet!
Bob's quote (and full explanation) can be found on the site on HHO Efficiency.
If you still don't believe, then test it for yourself!
We dont really know
"Law" of physics broken
. . . and by humans, not God. Today's New York Times reports that a physics experiment conducted at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and involving the collision of nuclei to create states mimicking those present in the early universe, has succeeded in creating local conditions that violate the laws of physics. The law, in this case, was parity: the principle that other physical laws, and the behavior of particles, are independent of a distinction between left and right. Apparently a violation of parity was seen in the quarks produced by those nuclear collisions, quarks that behaved asymmetrically. (Those collisions also created a temperature of 4 trillion degrees Centigrade!).
I'm not a physicist and can't vouch for the importance of this result, but I suspect that Sean Carroll will soon be explaining it over at Cosmic Variance.
Was Einstein Wrong?
By SASWATO R. DAS
Published: September 29, 2011
The results of a recent experiment at CERN, the giant particle accelerator near Geneva, seem to attack one of physics' sacred cows: Albert Einstein's postulate that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
In the experiment, physicists saw that streams of neutrinos — tiny, ghostly particles which seldom interact with other matter — were traveling just above the speed of light. But this is impossible if Einstein's theory of relativity is correct. So was Einstein wrong?
Einstein's near-mythic fame rests on his theory of relativity, which says that the speed of light in a vacuum, approximately 186,282 miles per second, is the ultimate speed limit. Nothing in the universe can travel faster. more