Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles

Start at www.panaceauniversity.org - links to most important information for your task is there. Also groups such as watercar at yahoo.com have active hydrogen users.

Best long term results I know of are about 90 mpg from a Saturn SL1 -

for that story look at Hydrogen-Boost.com

Typical results are 30 to 60 % increase in MPG -

Easy build that gives reliable results www.smacksboosters.110mb.com

About 1.7 LPM and good instructions to build your own for about $60.

About the 20th of June I will have a site up myself - explaining what you should know before you get carried away - and how to maximize your results.

Luck

rcb

A

I had not time to look at all the sources you gave. Certainly I will.

Anyway there are 2 points to evidence:

1) Water is not so innocent: if you are running your engine, burning hydrogen with the air, the water resulting from combustion is very acid ! and polluting!

2) Danger: an hydrogen tank on a car is fairly dangeous

I would not be so radical as Vicini, but even if i do not work for petrol industries, i would not say that having an hydrogen burning engine is very ecological or energetically efficient (no idea about costs).

Much better thinking and using fuel cells with an electric motor.

Take a close look at the links you provided.

I'm still looking for real data. A real mileage test would involve 100's of gallons of fuel & 1000's of miles driven. The results from Purdue are suspect vegetable oil giving higher powere out put than diesel?.

Lots of conjecture & self congradulatory high fiving.............................

There is no conspiracy, just a lack of overall efficency.

real results -

www.hydrogen-boost.com

rcb

Please @ least learn how to form a proper link http://hydrogen-boost.com/savings.html

below is an excerpt from the site:

Larry Trowbridge has been a Hydrogen Boost customer for over two years. At first he installed on a Dodge Durango and later I convinced him to get a Saturn. This past week Larry got serious about mileage and used Hydrogen Boost driving tips and equipment to achieve 81.22 mpg. He traveled 102.5 miles with 1.262 gallons of fuel. I verified with Larry that he did indeed go to the exact same station and fill his tank to overflowing and waited to insure the fuel did not settle into the tank. Here are pictures of his rebate offer form and gas receipts: The receipt on the right is the one from his fill-up at the beginning of the test run.

This is not a test! This is a story.

Under these conditions my mileage varies from -10 to 150 miles per gallon depending on how I'm parked in relation to the pump.

I won't bother to argue about whether or not it works.

prove it, show real data, not fairy [or dragon] tales.

The various sites don't post anything that even resembles potentially varifiable data for fear of being drug into court, by their ripped off customers!

the first thing is NOT DO IT. Second thing is to report the people telling you its good to the authorities.

next....

Interesting that you are smarter than nearly 60,000 people just in the eastern U.S. who are using these systems successfully. And which oil company do you work for?

Blue

GOOD ANSWER.

facts, show us 60,000 doing it. the FTC is shutting them down as we speak.

its a free country, be an idiot, who cares.

I'd like to say I'm from Missouri, however I'm from California but I would walk to Missouri to see the described 90 miles a gallon hydrogen vehicle.

I concur with you on your advice to the original poster. This has been discussed many times with the same results. I'll give him a link to start off on.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/20145

if he checks through the CR four threads there are a lot more negative comments.

Did ANYONE click on the link I provided - He has been building and selling boosters

for YEARS.

I have been building and installing boosters for a few months -

MY RESULTS - Ford F350 with 460 engine - 7.5 to 10.1 MPG with about 1.5 LPM of Hydroxy - ( common pipe electrolysys )

Read the Link I provided and you will find a well developed method that regularly

DOUBLES mpg if you do ALL THE STEPS.

Combination of chemical additives and Hydroxy regularly give 50 % increase in mpg with no other changes.

Unless you have built a booster that puts out 1.5 LPM or more on less than 25 amps,

you should not be telling folks how IMPOSSIBLE hydroxy is.

rcb

RCBondSr, Good luck with your system. Unfortunately you will not get much positive support here. I will check out your link for comparison with my own.

What many fail to understand is that hydroxyl production does not violate the laws of physics or thermodynamics, because the electricity used charges the electrolyte (water) like a capacitor, before the secondary circuit fractures the water.

At least that is the system I use.

Dragon

Please don't get me wrong there is always something to be learned. I don't necessarily doubt your numbers. Both of your stated mileages are within possibility . However I would have to question if there's another variable in the mix here.

If you can possibly supply anymore information it will be helpful in me doing a little math. I'm assuming the 25 amps is at 13.8 V DC.

As far as panacea University I don't trust them as far as I could throw the whole university. I would much rather hear from someone really working with it and the conditions of their test.

The mileage increase you've claimed of 25% is quite possible for a number of reasons not necessarily the hydrogen but possibly correcting a mixture problem or heaven knows what ,I've gotten similar percentage increases with motorcycles in fine-tuning the jetting

So you admit to fraud.

Does the site owner have your name and address?

j.

you are spamming liar, 1.5 liters would produce enough energy to start a lawn mower.

In the words of forest Gump...Nasty is as nasty does!...Opp's or was that word "stupid!"

You're a freak! I've seen these type systems work, and if you really are that narrow minded to think differently then you are just plain ignorant. Nobody is claiming this is the silver bullet, but with the price gouging that is going on every little bit helps. Why don't you do this planet a favor and try thinking outside the box for a change.

It would be refreshing, for once, to have like minded people working toward a common goal without this negativity.

Thank goodness, Edison, Bell, Marconi, and the Wright Brothers, just kept their eye on the prize, in spite of all that had to be critical and called them NUTS!

I have seen automobiles running on H! It is possible. There are backyard inventors working on this around the world, to them KUDO's, keep your eye on the prize.

I was an automotive ASE Master for over 30 years, working on Mercedes, Audi, Porsche, in most of the multi point, high line dealers. I may not be an Engineer with the diploma to prove it. 30 years counts, and I have learned that you have to think out of the box, because some of the engineered products I worked on, those engineers needed to be in the shop with us for sometime learning the practical side. Good ideas and solutions do come from some of the most unlikely places.

Put a man in orbit, couldn't be done, man on the moon, couldn't be done, send space craft to Mars, soft land it, it works and talks to Earth, could"t be done. Well, how about that!

1/10 that brain power applied to this goal, it can be done!!!!!!!!!

It will be done....And that knowledge will be given, freely to everybody that wants to put the energy into using it for themselves, and others.

Everything is not about MONEY. Hard to believe as that might be, for some.

One of the things I have noticed during all my research, is, nearly all the people that are really very close to a solution seem to disappear from their sites, will not be referred to, or worse, Killed. Wonder why that is????

I sure hope to be allowed to continue to learn from the people on sites like this.

I for one will continue to encourage all that are working on H as an automobile fuel, not compressed, but on board H generators.

EYE ON THE PRIZE !!!!!!

Pat

River Rat,

As a certified auto mechanic you certainly know internal combustion engines are run on LP, LNG, Propane, etc., and indeed can be run on hydrogen as just another gaseous fuel.

No doubt you also know hydrogen is available compressed in bottles. I fail to see why you insist on the chimera of producing it as the result of electrolysis on board the car itself.

That bottled hydrogen, produced for industrial purposes, is produced as cheaply as possible by passing natural gas through live steam or, as I understand it, indeed by electrolysis wherever massive amounts of cheap electricity (Hydro) are available.

If all this is about producing a cheaper fuel why not insist that crude oil be distilled for fuel on the car itself?

All the fine folks you cite, Edison, Bell, Marconi, and the Wright Brothers, despite the simple stories you were told in elementary school, were highly educated and well aware of all the work that had been done before and took heed of that work.

You speak of people working on this around the world. Other than the self hype that implies, how are those folks any different from folks all around the world who still believe the earth is flat or who think the trips to the moon or the space lab are all a fraud despite plentiful evidence?

Would not you, a certified auto mechanic, better serve by teaching us how to convert automobiles to run on gaseous fuels rather than continuing this nonsense about electrolysis of water on board the automobile somehow being able to provide hydrogen cheaper than compressed and bottled produced by industry for industry as cheaply as they, in market competition with others, can produce it with profit in mind.

j.

Hello Jack
well we're back to panacea University as we previously discussed ,a little tongue and cheek. When we last posted on the same forum, I said I was going to try and drum up support for a scam busters page. Follow the link some of these people are so adamant ,that if you don't allow them to advertise scams on the site you're the next thing the book burners.

it's not necessarily negativity. It's just criticizing your belief that hydrogen creates more energy than just running your car off the electricity that powers the hydrolysis. I don't doubt that you increase your mileage, but It would be much easier, and much cheaper to just implement electricity to help power your car.

If I was incorrect, and hydrogen actually was cheaper and worked better, there would be a very quick change over, as gas prices keep rising due to very basic economics. People can, and are willing to buy gas at higher prices, so prices will continue to rise.

"Thank goodness, Edison, Bell, Marconi, and the Wright Brothers, just kept their eye on the prize"

The only one of these that even comes close to being similar is the wright brothers, and scientists and intelligent people told them it was improbable, not impossible. So what am I telling you. It is impossible UNTIL you figure out how to create energy. But, even with that, it would be easier and more logical to just power your car with this created energy directly...

"One of the things I have noticed during all my research, is, nearly all the people that are really very close to a solution seem to disappear from their sites" This happens because they "get close to their goal" and then they realize that their idea falls through. As for the "Killed", you might find more backing for the belief backwoods people that "saw rit der in dat der garten a alien dropped out o der sky and ate ma dog."--no offense or anything, it just goes along with every other conspiracy

"I sure hope to be allowed to continue to learn from the people on sites like this."

--I hope you keep LEARNing from the multitude of knowledgeable people about such a wide variety of topics continually. But what you actually take and learn from is up to you.

"I for one will continue to encourage all that are working on H as an automobile fuel, not compressed, but on board H generators."

--I whole heartedly support anyone that seeks a better energy source, but definitely not anyone who seeks to convert one energy source into another and claim that it is newer and better.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=163254

WHY WOULD YOU WANT PEOPLE TO TELL THE AUTHORITIES? Are you the petroleum police? Or the fuel tax police? Or are anti free thinking! Or does your job benefit from the gross use of oil inefficiently.

Your statement " The first thing is NOT DO IT!" Why?

All great changes will be accomplished by those who experimented...."FREELY!"

the FTC is is shutting down the HHO thing because its a fraud. I hope you can get your money back.

report all HHO sellers to the FTC.

You might want to report Honda Inc. They have a Hydrogen engine driven Accord. Check it out, but I guess they have plenty of money to throw out the window. As technology advances, you can expect to see advances in other alternatives. Hydrogen is one of many alternatives. I bet you also subscribe to the Climate Change fraud conspiracy.

they are shutting down the HHO fraud stuff. The new Honda is a fuel cell Vehicle, not ICE.

If it was not Honda it was one of the other car makers who simply equipped a normal, I will assume since it was recently, fuel injected car to run on hydrogen.

The issue is not hydrogen but the do-it-yourself scam of electrolysis in a little bottle powered by the car that is going to use it.

Hydrogen is commercially available in standard bottles. Why do, at considerable risk, what commercial producers can do so much more easily and without personal risk except somewhere in it, when we dig carefully, there is the traditional scam on tinkerers.

j.

N6377B,

I'm tempting to make something insulting out of that identifier because you seem to insist some of us here are stupid.

No one here said a car with an internal combustion engine can't be run on hydrogen. We just said you can't do that economically.

But, like all scammers, you switched premises saying that Honda was running a car on hydrogen as though the premise was that the objection was to hydrogen rather than the pie in the sky perpetual motion machines nonsense of obtaining the hydrogen from the cars own electrical generation via hydrolysis.

Indeed, Honda has demonstrated a car running on hydrogen. If I remember correctly it was an internal combustion engine running off commercially produced hydrogen. Their scam is they were getting on that idiot Bush' bandwagon assertions as to hydrogen being the future fuel.

I have said repeatedly that you can, if you want to run a car on hydrogen, convert any engine with standard hardware like that used by Honda, buy hydrogen in bottles, and run as long as you wish that way. The hardware will be virtually the same as already used to run on LP, LNG, or propane. Matter of fact with modern fuel injected engines, as opposed to carburation, it is probably easier than previously.

The insistence on hydrogen from bottles of water via on board electrolysis, suggests many advocating that are scammers, and the rest their dupes.

Certainly, since it is inconceivable that onboard electrolysis could do it cheaper than mass production techniques by industries in competition and seeking profit, no other conclusion about most of the persistent electrolysis proponents can be drawn.

j.

Sorry friend, It looks like you will have to do your own research. You might get some ideas here, but mostly you will be in the position of the guy who hit the hornets nest with a stick "just to see what happens".

Blue

Go to Belgium, they have started Hydrogen Filling station just in last week.

for fuel cells, not ice!!!!

Vicini,

One is tempted to call you nasty things.

They sell it for fuel cells.

What's to stop folks from running it in their carburetor?

What are you selling?

j.

because an off the shelf engine with a carburator won't run on H2 or a least for very long.

All you really need to do is make the conversion for gaseous fuels, virtually the same as for LP, LNG, etc., and go down to the store and buy a bottle of hydrogen.

j.

virtually and actually the same are two things. Ford built the first H2 ICE in the 1980's. The engine is highly modified. The engine would cost 3 times as much as a stock engine driving the cost from $25,000 to $35,000 on a Camry. Then H2 fuel costs more per equivalant energy in gasoline.

You can google run your car on water plans and download the zip file, very interesting.

Paul

It is a great idea, don't listen to the nay sayers!

There are a lot of people selling information that leads you to believe you can produce enough Hydrogen to run your car on it----However---- why wouldn't they use the gases off the battery to run the car? It is an electrolysis cell basically the same as the scammers tell you to build.

No scheme I have seen has ever proved you can produce more energy by separating water than the amount of energy it takes to produce it! That would be great if it could be, but it is like a perpetual motion machine. You can't get more energy out than the energy that is put in!

Problem is the quantity of gasses produced is not a significant volume---but--- producing it offline and using it to fuel your car is very practical. The Science Channel had a very good show about several people doing similar projects.

Liquid hydrogen would allow you to store enough for a longer trip, but is for most people impractical. Just the equipment to get it to liquefy is prohibitively expensive!

Short trips are fine. I wouldn't modify the car so it would not run on gas when the hydrogen tank is empty.

Search for hydrogen fuel production, but stay away from someone trying to sell something and promising big gains in fuel economy. There is aways a catch somewhere.

They offer a lot of tips which by themselves wold help your mileage, but those things can be found online with a lot of patient searching.

Many years ago I used to take my cut grass and leftover food and ferment it to make alcohol which I mixed with my gas to mow my lawn with. It did not smell as bad as the straight gasoline!

It's fun to experiment! Try something! Contact me if you are arrested for using hydrogen to run your car, I'll contribute to your bail!

Good luck!

Sleepy,

Storing and transporting hydrogen is not as difficult as you might think. It is possible to use the very smallness of H2 molecules to our advantage. Pellets of metal hydride can absorb large quantities of H2. It is much like a sponge holding water. The H2 can be driven out of the metal hydride by low temperature heating. The pellets can be stored in bottles at low pressure -- and at the sort of temperatures normally associated with automobile fuel tanks.

Ken Stewart

KenStewart,

Thanks for that; I was not aware of that possibility except as a theoretical issue.

It certainly sounds better than piping H2 long distance!

Can you let me have some chapter and verse, web sources, industry sources. So that I can follow that up. Costs, timescale, energy required to store H2 in Hydride Pellets and required to recover the H2 are presumably issues. Safety issues would need to be addressed. Storage temperature range and pressure also. I am sure that I have left something out.

Thanks very much for that.

Sleepy

One very important thing we need to keep in mind when discussing hydrogen in a use like as a fuel in an IC engine is: Most natural occurring hydrogen is chemically bonded with something else like oxygen. Pure hydrogen (or pure enough to use as a fuel) makes good amounts of energy when oxidized (like in an IC engine) but you have to get pure hydrogen first.

For this reason I view hydrogen like a energy storage medium (like a battery). You have to charge a battery to use it, just like you have to generate pure hydrogen before it can be used as a fuel.

In general there are no "hydrogen mines" like there are coal mines or uranium ore mines or ready usable energy sources like solar, wind, hydroelectric etc. The typical ways to make hydrogen takes as much energy to break its bonds with something else as you get back out when you burn it. There is research going into how to better make hydrogen and some of this might pan out but each of these methods must be evaluated on an energy basis to see if its real or a scam.

Good old electrolysis generates hydrogen from water by breaking its bond with oxygen.This process of coarse uses electricity that was most likely generated with coal, uranium or a few other sources by you local power plant just like an electric car is really coal powered.

There are many valid points to argue about any method of powering your IC engine (car or whatever) but lets always include the knowledge of how the energy (usually originally from the sun) was actually harvested.

Thank you, Ken Stewart, for expressing in technical language what I was thinking, but unable to say so exactly.

Excellent answer - Now consider the combustion process - Add a catalyst and the

numbers for emissions and power change. Note the use of Nitrous or Propane

for just this use.

Hydroxy acts as a catalyst and IMPROVES the combustion of gasoline, diesel, or alcohol,

in an ICE. No magic here, just physics.

rcb

even catalyst cannot change the energy balance. A catalyst can lower the ecitation energy to get a reaction started, but the net energy balance is the same.

A lot of posts in this thread seem to miss the point. They get emotional and irrational. Many are not scientific. This general question needs to be broken into two separate issues.

1. Pure hydrogen fueled vehicles may be very possible, but it is impossible (based on the law of thermodynamics: the conservation of energy) to do it by electrolysis of water in the vehicle. Water is not a fuel, it contains no energy, but if you break it into oxygen and hydrogen by inputting a lot of electrical energy, the hydrogen and oxygen are very explosive and will return the energy that was input to separate them from water. Thus the two gasses are an energy storage medium. But since you can't get more out then you put in, and will probably get much less (heat given off in the electrolysis cell is lost energy), you can not do this without an external energy source. The car's battery or generator has to be charged from the same energy produced by the fuel. It is a perpetual-motion dream that plainly can't work. Adding hydrogen gas in the same manner as filling up your tank with LPG or petrol/gasoline is possible, but currently the hydrogen has to be produced from electricity, most of which is generated by burning hydrocarbon (fossil fuels). No free lunch. Electricity that is produced from wind, ocean currents or solar cells, as these technologies come on line, will make it possible, but other better alternatives exist besides carrying around a pressurized tank of hydrogen.

2. Hydroxy (hydrogen-oxygen mixture) produced by electrolysis of water that is then mixed with petrol/gasoline in the carburetor of a normal ICE engine will work. Perhaps even pure oxygen added to the fuel mixture to improve the burn efficiency of petrol/gasoline will improve fuel efficiency. By mixing the two gasses and then adding them to the regular fuel should improve fuel economy, even though the electrolysis cell may use 100-200 watts from the engine (electrical system) to operate. That is only about 1/5 of a horsepower. This is a great idea.

Here in Indonesia a local chap with an eighth-grade education is doing this and showing people how to do it (for free). His "discovery" hailed in the local press is merely a crude form of what is shown in this document: <http://smacksboosters.110mb.com/Smack.pdf> . This is no magic, but is merely a clever means to improve on the generally imperfect efficiency of ICE running on commercial octane fuel. No fraud is involved, since the technique will produce some benefit.

(The little gadgets sold since the 1950's that are added to a cut fuel line are much more of a fraud, and these have been around for decades. They are very questionable since they add nothing and don't change the manner in which the fuel is vaporized in the carburetor. They may have a minor effect by constricting the flow rate when you do jackrabbit starts, so engine performance is reduced under some circumstances. The power that is wasted through poor driving techniques is less, and fuel economy goes up. You can get the same results by slowly accelerating and slowing down early instead of driving at full speed up to a red light and throwing away the energy as brake heating.)

Raymond Weisling,
Yogyakarta (in Java)

Weisling,

"2. Hydroxy (hydrogen-oxygen mixture) produced by electrolysis of water that is then mixed with petrol/gasoline in the carburetor of a normal ICE engine will work. Perhaps even pure oxygen added to the fuel mixture to improve the burn efficiency of petrol/gasoline will improve fuel efficiency. By mixing the two gasses and then adding them to the regular fuel should improve fuel economy, even though the electrolysis cell may use 100-200 watts from the engine (electrical system) to operate. That is only about 1/5 of a horsepower. This is a great idea."

This is what you just denounced as a perpetual motion machine, without calling it by its usual name, i.e., Brown's gas.

Was it Shakespeare that said "A rose by any other name is still a rose." In your case a perpetual motion machine by any other name, "hydroxy," is still Brown's gas.

Could you be "in Indonesia [the] local chap with an eighth-grade education" being "hailed in the [ignorant and unscientific] local press"?

Science?? Or fraud???

j.

Listen, J.J.,

You still can't see the point. My number 2 point is not perperual motion at all because it relies on energy coming into the system from the outside, i.e., the gasoline (petrol). The small amount of energy it consumes from the engine is used to create gasses that improve the fuel mixture and release additional latent energy that is not efficiently extracted by the normal carburation and burning of fuel.

If the energy to produce this hydroxy were equal or grater than the energy released, efficiency ("mileage") would go down, but everyone reports increased distance per liter (you Inchlanders call them gallons).

(More than an eighth-grade education here, a Master's degree, actually, and 35 years as a practising engineer.)

RW./

If indeed you have a Masters degree, although after some years at university that doesn't impress me, and 35 years as a practising engineer, one would think you would know better than to risk your integrity by offering anecdotal evidence instead of hard numbers derived from lab based testing.

As to the perpetual motion machine, when you subtract the fuel normally used what you have left is an assertion that by expending electrical energy to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water you will end up with more energy than you put in that electrolysing process.

Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me even if submerged and concealed in the overall aspects of an automobile drive system.

Was that Masters degree in philosophy or sophistry?

j.

Hey RW, You might as well give up. You mentioned the word that gets Ol' Jack started: you wrote "Hydroxyl". Kind of like mentioning Lucifer at a Baptist convention.

After that everything is fire and brimstone.

I understood your point; you're not talking about powering the vehicle solely on Hydroxyl, just supplementing the fuel that you already are using.

Regards Blue

Jack ain't the only one.

You're on the wrong forum.

the mystic order of hydroxl is somewhere else. I waste my time going to the various sites suggested, lots of bullshine. It all sounds good, just no science??????? conjecture, innuendo & stories don't count.

If you want to talk about science, testing methods, data.......bring it on.

If you want to try to blow smoke up our butts, don't be surprised if you get a collective fart in the face.

No Guest,

You don't get the point!

After you subtract the usual fuel input, and the energy it may provide, he proposes to "supplement" that fuel input with fuel obtained by on-board electrolysis using on-board energy, which said on-board energy will be greater than any he may obtain from his "hydroxyl."

I was wrong. That is not a perpetual motion machine. It is a perpetual deficit machine insofar as he will be perpetually taking from the machine more energy than he can possibly put back with the product of that energy.

The man claims to be an engineer with a Masters degree. With that display of incompetence I wouldn't hire him to engineer an outhouse.

The reason I say that is that he demonstrates, short of deliberate falsification, an inability to see that he is stringing together a series of propositions that do exactly the opposite he claims.

It should be noted here that I am not an engineer. I do not have even a bachelors degree, just a couple of years at GSU amusing myself, and sharpening my own reasoning skills, taking apart the logic, or illogic, of some of GSU's philosophers, aside from time spent in other socially important courses.

j.

Dear Guest,

I too have a Masters degree but only 25 years as a practicing engineer. If you really believe this method will "release additional latent energy" --whatever that means-- then publish your results in a peer reviewed journal. Believable proof will involve a dynamometer and a measured supply of gasoline. I know you can't publish believable proof of improved gas milage because this proposal violates the law of conservation of energy.

Ken Stewart

Hello Guest: since there are several comments by a guest I'm not quite sure which ones are yours, so forgive me if I reply to something that you didn't say.

Since I'm not an engineer just a simple mechanic possibly you can explain where I'm making my mistakes. Following link

The following link takes you to the Winnipeg site, and the internal combustion engine page, which I'm using for some of my numbers. Since I am most familiar with my current vehicle (2006 hemi Dodge ram) I will also generate some numbers from its performance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine

Conservatively driven at 60 miles an hour I get approximately 20 miles to the gallon.
Gasoline, on the average contains about 120,000 BTU per gallon. Steel internal combustion engines (using the numbers most favorable to your position) are approximately 20% efficient.

1 hp hour= 2545 BTU.
At 60 miles an hour I burn approximately 3 gallons per hour.

3X120,000=360,000/2545=141 141 x 20%= 28.3 horsepower

The following quote from the Winnipeg article

"Most steel engines have a thermodynamic limit of at most 37%. Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids most engines retain an average efficiency of about 20% ".

The power required to move the same vehicle at 60 mph remains unchanged.

28.3 x 2545=72023 BTU. 1 gallon of gasoline at 37% efficiency equals 44000 BTU

or 72000/44400=1.62 gallons of gas or 37 miles per gallon.

My somewhat long-winded point, many of the hydrogen devices are claiming to more than double your fuel economy.

Even if there is some catalytic effect or some process unknown to most of us ,it would now seem that you've broken the thermodynamic limit for the engine.

As I said I'm not an engineer, but I have over 35 years experience playing with high-performance engines.

I've watched the industry and the engineering change in that time. Horsepower displacement ratios, and fuel economy versus performance has improved substantially. In the old days many of the advances in engine design were brought about by either someone on a racetrack, or the factory attempting to build a better engine for racing.

Currently the domestic automobile industry lives or dies on truck, SUVs and larger automobiles. The large vehicles are less economical to operate, so making them as economical as possible and perform as well as possible has been a driving force.

Domestic sales are being dramatically reduced by the ever-increasing fuel prices we've observed lately. I cannot imagine how anyone could believe that they would not install a $65 device that would substantially increase fuel economy on these vehicles, after all their existence is dependent on continuing sales of large vehicles. In short some of the statements made about the automobile industry are completely illogical.

So look at this one folks -

Passed the California Air Resources Board - Use H or O or HOH

link is https://www.hydrolectricpower.com

Jack, time to learn something different than what the Professor taught.

rcb

They say it's CARB approved?

What is the exeutive order #? So I can plug it in to the state search engine

http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/aftermkt/devices/amquery.php

Looks like another BS site, there's talk about science, but none to be found!

The main thrust seems to be recruiting dealers & installers..... Hmmm can you say multi level marketing.

What my professors at university recently taught me, although I have always known it, is to do rigorous attribution.

Your attribution, to someone making a living selling B.S., is double B.S.

You want to make your point direct us to a government web site with the official documents.

Until then your offering is just double B.S. I just wonder what it is that drives someone who apparently can read and write to offer such B.S.

j.

"time to learn something different than what the Professor taught."

yea, and defy natural laws. Next thing you know you'll be telling us that your car runs upside down, because there is no gravity acting on it...

Hi there, Ray! It is such a pleasure to find this reference on you! I am a true fan of your Four Letter Word and everything you have done in the nixie world! Could you please contact me? My name is Marco, I'm from Brazil and would really love to exchange some information with you. Thank you, my friend!! My e-mail follows.(cagamba@yahoo.com)

Respectable colleagues:

Mr Vicini could be polite in his arguments not using such a radical tone,
at he same we all should thank him for the concrete value of his data.

I desire to give an historical source:

At the end of 1800 beginning of 1900 you could find all ind of motorized cars:
+ steam engines (Cougnot car)
+ electric motors (Jamais Content first car to overspeed 100 km/h)
+ gasoline internal combustion engine

Slowly the other motor disapeared and the gasoline prevealed, because gasoline is a source of energy that was cheap, concentrated, easy to transport, relatively safe, and giving satisfying efficiency !

Since 1890 it has been very hard to find a more efficient source of energy . . .

Always we can improve. As engineers we have to improve, not to fight enemyes:
the steam engine disappeared itself, when a better one was designed and built.

Even if you are using electricity or Hydrogen, somewhere somehow you need to produce them. Most likely burning gasoline or something similar. Mr. Vicini is asking the most natural point:

why not to use the same gasoline to make your car go farther and get a better mileage ?

Is this off topic ? we have to be disciplinated not to mix reality and desires.

all these discussions were 4 years ago.

now, there is: http://www.watercar.in/

this site has test data, testimonials, etc.

has things changed now?