Anyone know about burning gas/water mix car

Long ago and far away when automobiles used natural aspiration adding a metered spray of water to the intake could help performance.

That was during the days when automobiles were inherentltly less efficient for many other reasons.

There are several forms of this scam. One is adding water to your fuel tank and a pill (usually camphor) and then paying a bunch to a mechanic to fix your screwed up engine. Another one is using the car's electrical system to break down water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Then modify your car to run on hydrogen fuel. This could actually work except you would have to expend more energy (gasoline) breaking down the water than you would get energy to run your car. I love the ones where you put magnets on your fuel lines to "break down" the gasoline to make it burn better. Of course, gasoline is nonmagnetic and would be compertely unaffected by magnets,

"I love the ones where you put magnets on your fuel lines to "break down" the gasoline to make it burn better"

I thought the magnets were to orient the gas molecules in the same direction so they would burn more completely.

I keep wondering why with all the scams on the subject that the FCC and others havent come down on these clowns and shut down their operations.

Now you tell me. I put the magnets on in the wrong direction. Now the molecules are so scattered that the gas will not burn.

Hey, don't forget about the turbinator (sp ?) that pre-swirls the air going into your intake !!

Hi All

Many moons ago we experimented with steam injection as an alternative anti knock device to lead, we found in highly tuned aero engines (Merlin) it was very effective and did indeed boost fuel consumption on the test bed. Real life however soon assured us that the no free lunch principle was and is firmly established, the extra weight of the kit meant that we carried less fuel and wasted any exra performance hauling it all around.

The best way to get more miles from your litre is actually how you use your right foot "Be Gentle" and minimise brake use as you can end up wasting fuel you have already burnt

Ecat,

You can run your car on water. Simply change your engine to Steam Engine..Suresh Sharma

Ecat

That bit is easy the real problem is persuading the wife to keep the boiler stoked

A metered spray of water does effectively increased the octane of the fuel for whatever physics are involved. We did it on a street racer back in the early 80's with a 12.5:1 compression ratio and it helped significantly. I have no idea what affect it had on gas mileage. Nobody gave a damn about mileage back then. Course, that was on a 4 barrel carb. I imagine it would do the same thing with fuel injection.

I have com accross hundreds of postings here in CR4 asking the same question. The views are highly polarized but most people in this forum agree that its mostly a scam.

However.. lets look at the way its supposed to work:

- The system claims that a car can produce H2 by electrolysis by using current made by the alternator...

- Then the H2 is fed back into the fuel mix.

- The advocates of these devises claim that this increases a car's mileage.

Most engineers say that it would take more energy to produce the H2 than you would get out by burning it. This due to the second law of thermodynamics..

----- > And this is true ! However, lets see where that extra energy is coming from .. It comes from the electricity produced by the alternator ... which arises another question: Does the car consume more fuel energy when there is an additional electrical load ? Lets think for a moment: Does a car use more fuel when one drives with the high beams on? Or the car is always producing a constant surplus of electrical energy ( More than the car usually consumes) and the device is just redirecting some of that to making H2? ( I personally don't know and I leave the door open for a car expert to jump in)

- The other question is if the system would make enough H2 to make a difference..

I am usually a skeptic but I think that the answer here would be to test it and measure it ... Like any experiment you would have to do it many, many, many times and honestly record the findings in a quantitative way.

It will be difficult to find someone that actually bought one of these kits and admit that it does not work... Its a pride thing... I guess.. They would not be able to admit that they gave money to one of these "scams" and it didn't work ... So you would have to find a large group of objective people willing to try the experiment...

I don't believe so, becoz the car engine is not designed for that function. Besides using Steam Engine to power the car, better we re-design and super up-grade the existing internal combustion engine for it to be very much more fuel efficient. The existing car engine is deemed as out of date as less that 30% of the gas are utilised.

Be carefull. You may have to first change the following parts. Silencer to be changed to stainless steel silencer. SS304 or higher grade. Replace existing valves with stainless steel valve. Lining of cylinder using ceramic coating.

Due to presence of water these items are effected.

Rest up to you to decide.

I thought that the question was about a devise to split H2O into H2 and O2 and then feed into the fuel mix...

I didn't think that they were actually thinking of feeding straight H2O into the engine ....

That would be senseless

Yes, there is a whole forest of astroturf out there in the form of endorsements for this scheme, but this all falls a long way short of providing convincing proof that it is anything but a scam.

I, for one, remain unconvinced.

Why is it that not one of the people who are either selling this scheme or who have installed it and claim that it gives better fuel economy ever subjected it to proper, controlled testing? Despite looking, I have yet to see the results of such a test published anywhere. There are plenty of dynomometers out there, and if the savings were as great as claimed then it should be dead easy to demonstrate.

Why is there no reasonable explanation for the mechanism by which it works? We can quite easily show that the electrolysis of water is a lossy process which draws its energy from the engine via the alternator (and no, the alternator only produces enough electric energy to match demand - more energy drawn equals more load on the engine) and hence from the fuel being burnt. There do not appear to be any published research that demonstrates that replacing ~0.1% of the air/fuel mix entering a car engine with a stoichiometric mix of oxygen and hydrogen will have any significant effect at all on engine efficiency, performance or fuel consumption.

So perhaps some of the proponents of this scheme could stop rabbiting on about how well they think it works, and address these concerns which I am sure are shared by many, many other engineers.

Paulusgnome:

Thank you for addressing my question about the alternator. So... following what you say ... an engine uses more fuel when one drives with the lights on than when driving with the lights off ?

My only direct knowledge of using water injection as a fuel enhancement is in the D-model of the T-29 (Convair 440) that was used as a navigator training aircraft out of Harlngen, (TX) AFB back in the 1950's and '60's. You haven't lived until you have ridden with some of those hotshot pilots who liked to see who could be at the highest altitude at the end of the runway. Rev it up hard against locked brakes, release the brakes, hit the water injection, suck the wheels, pull the flaps, and rotate vertical. One of the guys could consistently hit 10,000 feet. I have seen some in-cylinder water injection systems advertised that are probably modifications of what was used on those aircraft.

The most I could see the water injection doing was to give some water to 'flash boil' generating steam.

YES

COMBINATION OF AIR+ FUEL+ WATER IN AUTOMOTIVE

LEADS TO ALL FUEL ENGINE [ SOLIDS, LIQUIDS, GAS ]

ONLY A HOT GAS OUTPUT IS REQUIRED FOR

ANDY ENGINE TO GET 150 HP / 1000 CC Nasp

CONSUMES3.5 Lit/HOUR

OR

LEADS TO ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE - LAND , WATER

Well I would say if anyone really knows about burning water for gas this is the guy! I have been reading his research and trying to understand his complicated equations.

http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

See it for yourself!!! Water powered car!! nothing but regular tap water!!

Oh boy.

Stan Meyer's is (or shall I say was) the Rolls Royce of modern-day free energy and over-unity scammers. Please look at previous threads mentioning Stan Meyers and his scams over the years (much of which is just a rehash of previous over-unity energy scams concocted by others that date back decades). He even has his own Wikipedia page.

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

I have personally researched into his work and developments and found nothing but fraud and pseudoscience. Many have been suckered in by misleading and faked video and demonstrations along with pesudoscientific explanations that look good to the average person lacking a science or engineering qualification. Bald-faced lies also helped.

Many have tried to further build on his research and development but have not had any luck (for obvious reasons).

How can you say he is a scammer with all of his patents? Do you know how hard it was for him to convince the patent office to actually patent his material? If it didn't work he would not of gotten his patents. My Uncle is an engineer and his Hydrogen generator works great. He is getting 6 mpg better fuel mileage out of a tiny cell. A gentleman across the street gets 8 mpg better fuel mileage from his vehicle also with a tiny cell. Mine I fried my pwm, but on the bench it was putting out roughly 2 to 3 times what theirs is producing.About 2.5 liters/min. But it was also drawing 30amps plus at 12 volts. My pwm is only a 15 amp max.

Hi KirkP :

Thanks for your post. I don't know alot about this topic but I would like to hear more about what you said in your post. Care to share any more?

If it didn't work he would not of gotten his patents.

No, no, no this is totally wrong. As a patent holder I can tell you that patenting an idea does not prove that it works! Patenting is merely registering an idea. I have seen many a number of patent ideas that are total impractical garbage or physically impossible (such as an electronic circuit connected to the positive of the battery but leaving the negative of the battery disconnected). Now-days they are getting more stringent regarding patenting, and less perpetual motion, over-unity and free energy devices are being given patents. Do an internet search on free energy, zero-point, over-unity magnet motors and other miracle devices. You will find that many patents for these exist, patents for devices with claimed efficiencies that allow near-infinite amounts of free energy to be produced from these self-powered devices.

See previous posts on CR4 regarding patents.

With regard to Stanley Meyer, see previous posts on CR4, Wikipedia, posts on automotive water electrolysis and millage increasing scams and hoaxes, posts on explanations on the difference between real science and pseudoscience, etc. Seriously, this subject has been done to death here.

With regard to water electrolysis results, how are you obtaining them. If you are using a standard multimeter to measure PWM currents or trying to compare a car's range by driving it and comparing how far it traveled, then you are not going to get a meaningful result. Too many variables, uncertainty errors and measurement errors.

See previous posts on CR4 with respect to automotive application water electrolysis regarding performing proper tests and obtaining accurate results (or as accurate as can be obtained outside a fully-controlled and monitored testing lab).