Anyone here installed a HHO cell to their car? Interested in

>>1094307
it's bullshit, and you're a fucking retard. fuck you.

>>1094307
>Literal memery marketed towards faggots believing in free energy
kys

You should be ban for this post you retard.

There are instructions all over Google.

>>1094307
if you live in a wooded area, you would be better off using wood gas which actually works. only downside is it takes some time before you start generating enough gas for a combustion engine after starting a fire.

So what, you use your car battery to run this thing?
Less efficient than trying to drive your car with the alternator alone.

>>1096134
Is that gas gas or liquid gas?

>>1096138
The heat of the engine drives a Stirling Engine which generates electricity to electrolyze water and generate hydrogen gas which is fed into the gas system.

>>1096139
That's so fucking stupid I'm sure a perpetual energy tard would believe it.

>>1094312
Tbh OP said nothing about muh free energy. Didn't say what he wanted to do this for. My first guess to these things is gas efficiency.

>>1096139
gas gas, basically you make a fire under and airtight vessel with wood in it. as the wood in the vessel heats up it off gasses hydrocarbons, since its airtight it won;t burn because there is no oxygen. you could compress it and store it in tanks though. nest part is all the wood in the vessel becomes charcoal so its not like your wasting it.

videos of slavs all over youtube running all kinds of things on it, as well as US based preppers who want a means of generating electricity when the SHTF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RFb8ZIqbdE

>>1094307

haha

>>1096139
>The heat of the engine drives a Stirling Engine which generates electricity to electrolyze water and generate hydrogen gas which is fed into the gas system.

Well, at least its safer than the gasoline atomizer/vaporizer setups where people use jars to inject gasoline fumes to run their engines lean.
Its like people want to set their cars on fire.

File: leaf_blower_turbocharger.jpg (52KB, 600x404px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x404px

>>1094307
You need one of these to go with it.

>>1096139
Wow, this sure is stupid. But not as stupid as people think, because it is stupid in a more complex way. Because of the second law. Heat engines run at certain efficiencies. This is not because of friction as most people assume - although friction is not beneficial. But even a frictionless engine, to run cyclically, needs to take heat in, perform some work, and let some heat out into the ambient (the last two, as middle school physics tell us, sum into the first one). The amount of heat you can turn into work depends on the temperatures and the "shape" of the cycle. A kJ of high temperature heat is more valuable than a kJ of low temp heat for this exact reason, even though they are the same quantity. Some forms of energy are simply more valuable than others. Electrical energy can for example be fully converted into mechanical work, therefore it is very valuable.

So, this is why the idea is flawed - if you use heat from the engine exhaust, which is low temperature (relatively) heat to run the stirling engine, and the atmosphere to cool it, you only turn a small fraction of said heat into work. This is thermodynamically valid and all, but might end up not being worth the effort, especially noting the problems with cooling the stirling engine efficiently. Assuming the engine temperature of 180C, this means around a 34% maximum theoretical efficiency. No more than that, and you get even less, noting the fact that you are not actually routing all your waste heat through the stirling. Now you generate your hydrogen. I won't even take the efficiency of your little generator into account. It is probably not that high, but lets just assume a 100%. You are producing hydrogen and oxygen, you burn those again in the cars engine, which turns the chemical energy of the fuel into heat and that heat into work at about 30% efficiency. You get 10% of the waste heat in the IDEAL conditions. It would be far better to use the stirling to provide shaft power or electricity.

>>1096321

To expand on that. Waste heat recovery from internal combustion engines is a valid and a very potent field of research. On industrial scale this can be done, by using the waste heat to run Rankine (or often organic Rankine) systems (steam plants), stirlings or absorbtion chillers. If all the power generated from those is converted into work/electricity, they do save you quite a bit in the long run. But to run them to produce fuel, the energy of which is going to turn 70% into waste heat anyway? That's just retarded. It would make some sense as a way of storing energy (an ineficient one thought, but it's not like we have efficient ways of storing medium quantities of energy).

In a small scale (and a car engine is very small compared to sizes used in energy generation), the best way of recovering your waste energy is to run a turbocharger. A stirling under the bonnet is valid if used to provide shaft power or electricity for driving the car (in a hybrid?), but difficult to do in practice due to the power density. A few peltiers would be easy to do, but not as effective. So even if you abandon the stupid HHO idea, there are still problems to tackle. I would encourage people to tackle those - just not with silly free energy ideas.

>>1094307
Jake, get back to shipping

>>1096139
>Stirling Engine in engine bay
>Generating enough power to make a significant amount of hydrogen.
Do you not think before using your credit card? The quakery in these poeple makes me wonder if I, from a financial perspective, chose the wrong career.