Видео

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.

Bangin is always the goal.

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.

Thank you for the support. I very politely invited this individual/group/whatever to engage me in a live format.

Could you forgive me for saying (in a Hannibal Leuchter voice) "People will say we're in love".

@@Ron-yj4rh you know how to steal a girls heart

@@Ron-yj4rh my name is sherrice

Hey. I just sent this to the guy who runs Stand Racing. We'll see what happens.

@@Ron-yj4rh what is stand racing?

@@sherrimathers2497 It's the company that is sponsoring the contest.

Yeah. Cuz....flying!

True story. This is the first time in the history of my channel I got a like and a comment before the editing was done.

@@Ron-yj4rh 😆😆 yeah that's just how I roll 🤡🎉

Bad Influence by Slim Shady?

@@Ron-yj4rh the rapper Ludacris. Lauryn Hill did hip-hop with the Fugees.

The Ludacris song was Ms. Jackson And the Fuji song was killing me softly

Got a story with this one.

Lots of polishing going on.

I'm actually really impressed with how much music is available for these videos. Thank you for weighing in.

The pleasure was mine.

A lot of work went into My Balls. Glad you enjoyed them.

@@Ron-yj4rh I got so excited when I saw your balls in the video. I like looking at them from different angles

Someday you may be able to see My Balls in an art gallery.

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.

They sure do. They motivate us to do better.

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.

What would make this move forward is the lifters being mounted on Cardan joints so they could swivel.

@@Ron-yj4rh I don't understand, I'll have to learn what you are talking about

@@titoqwentezproductionz3406 I'll help any way I can.

Appreciate it. I got OCD like you wouldn't believe. Some people journal. I sketch.

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.

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.

@@Ron-yj4rh you clearly have no idea how this reaction works and are ignoring me when I try to explain. Good luck with your Hydrogen.

Thank you for the feedback. It's priceless to small RUclipsr like me.

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'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 RUclips 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?

If the opportunity arises, I might actually try to build it. Thanks again.

Just out of curiosity, what element of my video launched you into an angry tirade?

Just perchance do you beat off with 2 fingers? I find this info quite interesting

@@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 RUclips 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.

Which HHO system are you basing your analysis on?

@@Ron-yj4rh Does it matter? The ICE is the largest efficiency loss.

@@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.

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.

Thanks for the comment. Can you share what HHO system you are basing your claims on?

@@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.

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 RUclipsr, 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.

@@lanzer22 As an engineer, do you feel that every possible avenue was explored with the development of HHO technology?

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.

I am utterly bewildered by this video in regards to how RUclips 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.

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.

@@suodrazah6015 I'm kind of on the same page. Maintain the infrastructure, but use it more intelligently.

@@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.

After a fashion. I have a hard time with scripts. It's funny. I used to think it was lazy to do. But now that I'm making more videos, it makes sense.

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 RUclips 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.

These engines could be in everyone's cars. One moving part.

Thank you for the comment.

If this were modeled in the real world and created an issue, I would certainly modify it. Thank you very much for the feedback.

​@@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 When everything is said and done, I imagine a lot of refinement is going to happen with this. Thanks again.

@@giovannicesaramorim9adigan961 I would love to run this through a generative design program to eliminate all potential waste and make it as light as possible.

Thank you for the feed back. I'll do one better: I'll draw it in an exploded view and release a new video soon. Thank you for watching.