Any thoughts about this newscast re water for fuel?

Hello billvelek

<"....you can increase your gas mileage up to 35% withjust one simple step....">

<"...You run your engine on Hydrogen....tap water in a Mason Jar....">

<"....mileage increased from 16mpg to 26mpg....">

<"....When the water gets to the combustion chamber, water turns to steam, and you have all these Hydrogen and Oxygen molecules with gasoline, in a very confined space with a spark plug, I don't really see how we can go wrong....">

<"....but it doesn't work for everyone, or some cars because of their computer system....">

Then they say how much it costs....haha, I just knew there was a catch somewhere.

Anyone who gets sucked in by that, is a credulous person, who have not bothered to check a simple Chemistry or Physics book, and who deserves to waste their money.

Kind Regards....

You said: "Anyone who gets sucked in by that, is a credulous person, who have not bothered to check a simple Chemistry or Physics book, and who deserves to waste their money."

Well, I feel sorry for some folks, such as the technologically-challenged elderly and some folks who God just didn't bless with much intelligence, so I've sent a letter to a few people to ask that the business be investigated for fraud; I'm a city attorney and local prosecutor, but it's out of my jurisdiction. I just hate to see someone make a bundle of money on something like that. I can't believe the news station didn't bother to check out the science before what can only be described as a huge bit of free advertising.

<>Cheers.

<>

<>Bill Velek

Hello again, billvelek

Good for you, that you are prepared to do something about it.

Advise how it turns out, thanks.

Kind Regards....

Just to add a simple explanation that lay folk can understand.

The water turns into steam ...yes . But this takes heat (energy) from the combustion.
The Hydrogen and oxygen then burn...yes. Releasing heat (energy) ...but it is exactly the same amount (or less) as was taken in the first place...and it ends up back as water.

To go from water to steam and back to water is hardly going to result in any free energy. Else we'd all be boiling kettles and enjoying the copious free power!

There is evidence that a small amount of water can assist combustion but it isn't actually burning itself.

Del

You might be confusing this with the systems that use electrolysis to actually produce some hydrogen (and oxygen); there are a number of them out there, as have been discussed in other threads on this site. That is not the case here; the vendor is claiming, incorrectly, that when water turns into steam, that the chemical bonds between hydrogen and oxygen are broken. I don't believe that that should ever be the case whatsoever; all that is taking place is a simple change in the phase-state. But _IF_ there DOES happen to be some bonds broken during vaporization, I can't imagine that the amount would even be measurable enough to register any change in mileage. And as you said, the energy required to split the hydrogen and oxygen would equal or exceed the amount of energy produced when they recombine. If that were not true, then we would have the makings of a perpetual motion machine. Heck, setting off a nuclear bomb in the ocean would even set it on fire that would sustain itself.

<>Cheers.

<>

<>Bill Velek

Hello Del the cat

The only way the water can turn from steam to hydrogen and Oxygen, is by having red-hot-iron inside the combustion chamber.

This method, using red-hot cannon barrels, was used in France, for early Hydrogen-filled balloons.

For a different reaction, please see: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3615300.html

<"A process for producing a hydrogen-rich gas mixture which is lean in CO and CH₄ relative to CO₂ which comprises:

A. contacting subdivided carbonaceous matter with steam and oxygen in a reaction zone at temperatures between about 800° F. and 1,350° F. to form H₂ and CO₂,

B. maintaining the temperatures in the reaction zone within 100° F. of the average temperature for the reaction zone,

C. withdrawing the hydrogen-rich gas mixture from the reaction zone, and

D. feeding sufficient steam to the reaction zone so that the hydrogen-rich gas mixture which is withdrawn from the reaction zone contains at least 60 volume percent steam.">

All the above is quite complex, and energy-consuming.

Please disregard most of the Google advertisements for "energy-saving devices and systems", on that above webpage.

As you say, if the el-cheapo "energy-saving" advertised processes worked, we would be in potential trouble from run-away reactions, in even small quantities of water.

Kind Regards....

Sorry, Del. No offense meant. I'm new here and don't know folks. I just thought that you seemed to be acknowledging the presence of hydrogen and oxygen, but were then indicating that it is still a wash (takes more energy from the engine to split the bonds than is yielded during combustion). Of course that is true, but I thought you were relating it mostly because of the other thread which does include the use of electrolysis.

In any event, we're in the same camp, and I'll eventually pick up on your style of writing and your humor.

Bill Velek

Hi Del,

Actually when water turns into steam, it is still H2O, the hydrogen and oxygen atoms are still bound together, and there is virtually no free oxygen or hydrogen created. If it were otherwise, boiling water indoors on a gas stove would be dangerous business. The change from liquid water to steam is a phase change, not a chemical change.

The only way that hydrogen from water could ever be a fuel source would be if someone developed a 'magical catalyst' to separate the hydrogen and oxygen. Otherwise the energy required would always be slightly more that produced (due to the inefficiency of any real industrial process). We must hope that no one ever does develop such a catalyst, since it would inevitably escape into the environment, with obvious and devastating results.

John:

If Del didn't already know that, and a great deal more, I'll eat my hat. Del has the unfortunate habit of trying to be funny with the wrong audience. Hang around, and you'll really get a whiff of engineering humor. I've been involved in many fields of science and engineering all of my life, since I started studying electronics in 5th grade, and Del teaches me something new, AND gives me a laugh, nearly every time I encounter him. And he DOES know his stuff!!

Go back and check out his post. It was gently sarcastic humor. No foul intended, and certainly Del, even as old as HE is, hasn't slipped that many cogs! Yet!!

Micah

Ooops, you're right. Apologies to Del.

Bill,

More power to you.

I also like the way the new 'experts' (drips under pressure, etc) always attach the 'new technology' to the old reciprocating piston engine. They must like the noise.

( I s'pose that's not really fair. We all do. That's why the retro-fit exhaust pipe business is so robust. 'Rev-heads' forever.)

I personally have been on a crusade here to try to expose the 'shonkys' to the general populace. It's a difficult row to hoe. In the end one is effective on a very few, and the populace one is trying to educate generally regards one with suspicion. Every one WANTS to believe in miracles. Don't let a little elementary science get in the way of a good scam. I was further saddened by finding that some of the promoters actually BELIEVED the stuff they were spouting, to utter devastation when they were 'found out'. A sad indictment of the general education system (read: Parenting).

Just a couple of weeks ago an offer arrived via this medium (email) to sell me a system of the type you describe for a "paltry $49.95". 'They' suggested I keep it confidential lest word get out and the rush would be on.

The spread of b......t seems to increasing exponentially. ($$$$$$)

Then there's the comment:" he's only an engineer, what would he know". *o#^%*##.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Stu.

Gee! And there I go buying about a dozen for Christmas presents!

Thanks for intervening to stop this farce. You are right that many people, young and old, have neither the education nor the mental capacity to sort this out for themselves.

However you shouldn't be surprised that the news people didn't check this out. Journalists may be educated people, but their education has not been scientific: to a journalist the concept of 'critical thinking' means at most to report two conflicting points of view with a sense of impartiality and 'fairness'. In this case it simply meant to be careful to use 'multiple sources' for their 'news story'.

That one side of the conflict might be demonstrably correct and the other side pure nonsense isn't something they are taught to consider. Most of them managed to graduate without being required to take any actual science courses. Our universities have 'special' science classes for their 'non science' majors, so they can earn a 'Bachelor of Science' without actually having to know any.

Math and Science are hard, English, History, Journalism, and Social 'Sciences' are easier, don't require actual critical thinking, don't employ empirical testing of ideas, etc.

My friend George said when Gas gets to $6 we will find a better fuel.

The engine technologh is here. We will learn how to split water and then I will be one of the happy ones that say to OPEC "Have a Drink!"

The big thing will be for the gov to put a meter on your car and bill you per mile.

The oil companies will have it hard for a while why they find something elso to do.

I give the USA on year records will be set as speed of grouth industuries.

We will learn how to split water and then I will be one of the happy ones that say to OPEC "Have a Drink!"

We already know how to split water with fairly high efficiency (75%). Even if we split water at 95% efficiency, we still can not get, from burning the H2, any more than 95% of the energy put into the process back out. (Typically, in the US, most of that energy input would come from burning coal.) If we burn the H2 in an internal combustion engine, then we get a small fraction of the energy used to split the water back out: the vast majority goes off as waste heat.

Today, we have car-type personal transportation choices ranging from roughly 10 mpg to almost 50 mpg. Simply choosing to use less energy by driving cars near the 50 mpg end could dramatically reduce our reliance on OPEC, without the need for any R&D whatsoever. If we had really good bike lanes, many of us could bike to work -- also no need for R&D, and there'd be great health benefits.

You raise an interesting point. Some of the local politicians are starting to listen, and talk about what will replace the gas tax for road construction and maintenance.

This will become a larger problem as we get cars that burn less fuel.

Politics is one of the problems engineers must deal with one way or the other.

Toll Roads are more common back east - but I have never felt that was a helpful system for society. Restrictions on travel can be political or economic.

Neither fits with our history. Movement is why the Interstate Highway system was built. Moving the Military was the front for a major upgrade to social and economic mobility.

We have a HUGE infrastructure around the TAXES collected from FUEL -

This is a POLITICAL problem that has already affected efficient fuel systems.

rcb

Bill, keep your eyes open, as the price of gas goes higher the scams will be coming at greater and greater frequency...

You might think about doing a service for the folks in Arkansas by calling a reporter for KARK and introducing him to a chemist to explain that they have been duped.

WYFF in SC reported something similar several years ago, which I knew was a scam, and which someone later exposed. WYFF tucked their tails and reported that they had been duped.

Stay vigilent!

I visited the KARK-4 website forums and found that another poster beat me to the punch and posted a message rebuffing the station and explaining the science, etc., so I added my two cents which included severe criticism of their station for not verifying the facts before airing their broadcast. I presume that someone in their station probably reads their own forums occasionally, and in any event, if something happens on the legal end, they're sure to hear about it. By legal end, I mean that I have sent messages explaining my concerns to the Governor's Office, Attorney General's Office (consumer fraud division), and the Pulaski County Prosecutor's Office (the county were the business is located). I have also asked them to reply to me to advise what they are going to do about it, and if nothing happens, then my next step will be to contact the competiting news stations ('ABC' and 'CBS').

Bill Velek

scary.

I'd love to see those guys try to ignite their steam.

Is anyone noticing a pattern here:

1) blond clevage bimbo number one introduces and hypes the fraud, then hands off to;

2) blond clevage bimbo number two, who pushes the fraud with great vigor.

A fraud conspiracy that includes this many people might qualify for RICO prosecution at the federal level.

Don't mean to highjack this thread, but thought I might throw in my recollection of a news report that was broadcast a few years ago. The female reporter was commenting on how a demented fellow was apprehended by police after they lobbed a teargas grenade through a widow. The guy had been holed up with his pet rats in his tiny dwelling, threatening to shoot at whomever tried to capture him. I'm not quite clear on exactly what happened, but I think the guy started a fire inside his dwelling, so the cops quickly resorted to teargas.

The reporter related how the guy was driven from the building, due to the teargas, and went on to say that, "Firemen have said that the rats weren't harmed by the teargas, because rats don't have tear ducts." When I heard that I just about fell off my chair. The reporter was no longer working for the TV station a week later.

It is distressing, isn't it?

This thread from just a couple days ago, is about a similar scam. A Palm Beach TV station "tested" this hydrogen generator, and came up with ludicrous mileage improvement numbers, lending credence to yet another scam. It makes one wonder if the station was paid off. I plan to write to the station, the station owners, and the FCC.

Heh, heh. I just visited the website for the Hydro-4000. I haven't studied all of it, but the first scientific flaw I noticed was where the website states: "The engine alternator keeps turning whether or not the engine and battery use all of the electricity it produces. Energy is wasted constantly turning the alternator that is captured to power the HYDRO-4000 which, in turn, produces HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN GASES used to improve combustion. The way modern engines work, powering the HYDRO-4000 is basically free." They either have no clue, or else are hidding it from customers, that the more electricity that is drawn from the alternator, the more resisitance it creates and lags the motor down, requiring more horsepower and therefore more gasoline. They apparently don't know that gas mileage is affected by all of the electrical devices in a vehicle; that's right -- your gas mileage drops when you have your headlights or radio on. That's why it ticks me off that new models have headlights constantly on, even in the middle of the day in the blazing sun; it's supposed to make them more visable and therefore improve safety, but I'll bet the folks who came up with that brilliant idea had no idea at all that it is costing drivers more money and is creating more pollution.

Bill Velek

That idea was originated in this land when we had single carriageway roads.

It was to help indicate which way a vehicle was travelling when sighted on the other side of the road. Think of it this way- you dive out from behind a truck to overtake it and you see a pair of red lamps ahead. You're safe. But see a pair of white ones----?

That said, it's all but irrelevant now. The folks in the country on those sorts of roads generally have better manners. And the folks on the freeways don't need to. But they still do. It ticks me off too. Here's me trying like all getout to reduce usage of energy, and these imbeciles run every light on the vehicle, all day. I've actually said to some:" Your fog lamps are on", and the reply is mostly tossed back," Oh , they come on with the ignition". I guess they do when the switch is turned on. Lamebrains!!!

In some states here,it is actually unlawful to have the fog lamps lit when there is no cause for them to be lit. I've asked various road patrol officers why it is tolerated and the stock answer is that to stop the practice is too hard. It should be noted about now that the 'fog' lamps have often been removed in favour of driving lamps. There's a lot of light comes out of those things. I'm forever adjusting the mirrors.

Stu.

Check out water wheels too!

Cheers

Vince

Hmm...I like the clear container touch. You can see the action right there in the vessel. I feel better already- and wow- just in time with increasing fuel costs. My version of fuel cost savings contraption uses table scraps and old beer cans to produce fusion- and comes in a polished stainless vessel. I understand now I failed to market properly...a website, a clear reaction vessel, and a local news plug. Damn.

It is amazing things like this are broadcast- but a look backwards shows how this will not stop. Humans- we are smart- and we are ignorant. There is a frontal boundary of the two- a storm that brews there.

And they say text to speach computers has not been perfected!

Origo1 Water Dissociation System

Outlined below is a water dissociation system that does not require electrolysis. It

requires only a photocatalyst, and a source of natural or man-made light. This system recycles its own water byproduct.

Water, of course, is the only portable non-carbon source of renewable fuel available in the huge quantities needed to supplant gasoline. Water requires no investment in exploration, drilling, refining, mining, transportation, service stations, or disposal of nuclear waste. Unlike carbon-based fuels, water is recyclable.

Titanium dioxide is a cheap and plentiful photocatalyst. Dr. Chris Sorrell at the University of New South Wales is working on water dissociation systems using titanium dioxide. (c.sorrell@unsw.edu.au) Australia has 40% of the world's supply of titanium dioxide.

In February, 2007: Dr. Manoranjan Misra of the University of Nevada/Reno, (misra@unr.edu) announced that he had developed carbon nanotubes that dissociate water in the presence of light. He reported that: "The new power source is extremely cost-effective…"

Expensive tris bipyridine ruthenium, reacting in combination with dioctadecyl or dihydrochlolesteryl esters, also dissociates water in the presence of light.

The following Origo1 system consists of a water dissociation chamber connected to a light chamber by optical fibers. The light chamber receives sunlight from a vehicle's roof, hood, and trunk top surfaces. Sunlight is supplemented by a powerful electric light for both overcast daylight and night driving. The dissociation chamber contains photocatalysts and a gas separation system.

Why carry compressed hydrogen at 5,000-10,000 pounds per square inch, as proposed by many, if sufficient hydrogen can be generated by photocatalysts on board a motor vehicle to operate a fuel cell, or an internal combustion engine tailored for hydrogen, or a steam engine?

The light chamber contains a golf-ball-size light bulb, developed by Fusion Lighting of Rockville, Maryland under a U.S. D.O.E. grant. It emits 450,000 lumens when excited by microwaves. A 100-watt light bulb output is 1,690 lumens. The light bulb contains argon gas and a small amount of sulfur. The presence of microwaves makes it necessary to shield the dissociation chamber from the light chamber.

Microwaves are supplied by micro-power impulse radar (MIR), a short-range system small enough to be put on a $10 computer chip, using very little electricity. MIR was developed at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by Tom McEwan, and is available for licensing.

Heat from the light bulb, as well as heat from any fuel cell, internal combustion engine, or steam engine in the system, is conducted by insulated heat pipes to a chamber equipped with thermoacoustic electric generators developed at the U.S. Los Alamos Lab, and with photovoltaic cells that use infrared and visible light to make electricity, such as the 35% efficient solar cells developed by JX Crystals Inc. of Issaquah, Washington.

The more light and area of catalyst to which water is exposed, the greater the quantity of water that can be dissociated within a given time period. This is the key to the whole system. When daylight is directed by optical fibers to power a large area of catalyst, then more hydrogen and oxygen is produced than is needed for the fuel cell, internal combustion engine, or steam engine. Since motor vehicles spend much time parked outdoors, JX solar cells continually charge batteries for night driving, taking advantage of free solar energy.

A honeycombed and well-lighted catalyst can expose water to an acre of area within a volume of a couple of cubic feet. One cubic foot of charcoal, for example, has a surface area of 12.4 square miles. A stable foam is used to contain and support the titanium dioxide catalyst. Solid gas-permeable membranes in the dissociation chamber are used in a gas-separation system.

Catalysts can become contaminated. Since titanium dioxide is inexpensive—it's the stuff that makes paint and toothpaste white—provision is made for changing the catalyst and its support structure, much like changing a vehicle's oil filter. Contaminated catalysts can be recycled and used again.

Electric power for night driving comes from three high-capacity car batteries kept charged by regenerative braking; by excess electricity developed by fuel cells, and by utilization of waste heat and solar energy by the JX solar cells. Batteries sometimes require recharging during periods of prolonged absence of sunlight caused by clouds, or caused by parking vehicles in closed garages during daylight hours. The batteries, of course, supply power for the MIR radar, exciting the argon gas and sulfur in the light bulb to produce its intense light.

A standby system operates the dissociation cycle on a minimum demand basis when vehicles are parked. Also, the standby system eliminates the warm-up time required by current fuel cells, and, in cold weather, it keeps the system water from freezing.

Large, stationary versions of the portable system can be built to provide on-site generation of electricity for individual businesses and homes, thus eliminating the need for large electric generating plants and the millions of miles of transmission wires. Those who can generate their own power will say goodbye forever to high fuel prices and electric power outages caused by grid overloads, downed power lines, or sabotage.

requires only a photocatalyst, and a source of natural or man-made light. This system recycles its own water byproduct.

Of course, the source of man-made light would have to be off-board, rather than on-board, unless you are intending to propose a perpetual motion machine.

Assuming the source is sunlight, then you could expect 6kWh per day (worldwide average) times the efficiency of the collector x cos 45 degrees (avg. latitude), or about 6000 x .35 x .7 = 1470 watt-hours per day electrical input per horizontal square meter. Assuming 3 sq M collector area, you'd have about 4.5 kWh per day. It would be an extraordinarily light car that could be powered for a meaningful distance on this much energy (this is less that 1/10 the capacity of the Tesla batteries -- and the Tesla is already a small car).

Given the small amount of energy available, it would seem to make sense to simply store the energy in batteries, and run electric motors directly at 90% efficiency, rather than inserting another conversion, and running a fuel cell at 50% and electric motors at 90%.

But in any case, going from sunlight to h2 makes more sense environmentally, than to go from fossil fuels to h2.

A diagram would be a help in getting others to understand your proposed system.

Lets do the math for more familiar automotive numbers: 4.5 kw-hours per day is equal to 6.03 horsepower-hours per day. If your daily commute is 30 minutes each way, then you need a car that can make the run (1 hour total) with a 6.03 horesepower engine. Last time I checked, none of the cars being sold today will take you to work and back with a 6.03 horsepower engine. (kW x 1.34 = HP) This little unit could run all day and only make enough hydrogen to get your car to the end of your driveway.

4.5 kw-hours per day is equal to 6.03 horsepower-hours per day.

And even the 4.5 kWh per day assumes extraordinarily efficient solar cells. If you figure in the losses in going to and from hydrogen (as well as the perpetual motion scheme of using an onboard artificial light to run the H2 generation process at times??!!) you have to wonder if the post was intended to be tongue-in-cheek.

Of course, if the unit ran all day making hydrogen, most of its energy would be consumed in compressing that hydrogen for later use. If the H2 were used in real time, then the car would achieve less than walking speed in the morning and evening commutes, and would run around in circles (tethered, presumably) in the work parking lot midday, for entertainment, I assume.

Ahh lets go back a few years - another thread reminded me of this oldie - Opal GT

electric :)

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1979-07-01/An-Amazing-75-MPG-Hybrid-Electic-Car.aspx

The image enlarges when clicked.

enjoy

rcb

Hello rcbondsr

From that Weblink:

<"....As far as the driving range is concerned, Dave points out that-if driven carefully the car can travel unlimited distances (as long as the generator engine continues to function) . . . because of the fact that the motor has a low draw at cruising speeds: only .23 amps at 1,800 RPM. Since the Briggs & Stratton engine turns at a fixed rate and can generate 100 amps at about 28-1/2 volts, normal driving presents no problem.....">

But the Article also shows the diagram above.

Now I can see with my own eyes, and do the Maths too.

The diagram shows 4 in total 12 Volt Automotive Batteries, which gives a Battery Voltage of 54.4 Volts when fully charged.

What this gross error means, is that there is already a major error in the article regarding the Voltage of the Battery Pack, or perhaps nobody proof-read the Article.

Perhaps there are other errors in that Article, not noticed by yourself, of other readers over the years.

These days, of course, the 100 Amp Generator would be replaced with a 100 Amp Alternator, which is far more efficient.

Kind Regards....

The local TV station here had a piece on using magnets to increase gas mileage. Of course, the guy who claimed it increased his mileage is selling the kits for about $100. I was gratified when I checked their web site and saw a few emails giving them what-for for not checking it out first.

Bill,

This is a POOR example of something REAL.

Start with these links - www.panaceauniversity.org

and then www.smacksboosters.110mb.com for a widely replicated unit that gave me more than 30 % increase in MPG

rcb

You don't give up do you!

Why are you here?

Both these sites are BS

No science just ra ra

testimonials aren't proof.

Please peddle your scams on a forum that caters to true belivers or come up with some proof!

Garthh,

Statement _ I built and tested both hydroxy ( smack type ) and chemical additives to my gasoline -

I have posted MY results - about a 25% REDUCTION in COST each week.

Query - Have YOU built and TESTED either method of increasing you MPG.

Or do you just believe what you are taught - and never TEST new ideas.

rcb

Testing my way to a 50 MPG Maxima -

Ken,

GA.

You have omitted to mention the alternative 'energy' source. That is liquid oxygen.

Develop a national distribution for LIKWIDOX tm. and convert all the cars to run this gas (no air) and we've got it made. The cars will put out so much power they'll be on the verge of meltdown. This will become fashionable with the current crop of youth. They'll be able to skite about achieving 'meltdown' in the 'burnout'. Zingo!

The carmakers will love it. Sell more product as the meltdown rate increases. Everyone wins?????

WHAT!!

What do you mean? Energy used to liquify O2? A mere snip. Not worth thinking about.

Don't forget that it's one of the most abundant elements on the planet. ( LOL)

Just a thought, for when you get some more time and want to have some fun.

Cheers,

Stu

The old HHO scam surfaces again. This is too much fun to ignore. Someone should advise the TV station about it, because if someone buys one of these fakes the station may get sued too.

The Model T was run on hydrogen in 1933 - with an electrolytic carburater - looks like you have one of the vintage to try it on - patent is at the much maligned PanaceaUniversity.

Please feel free to post your results in detail!

Make, model, year, miles & use of your test power plant.

MPG on gas, propane Or diesel

conditions of operation: temperature, route, wind speed & humidity

total miles traveled & amount consumed.

State of charge of the battery before & after

Repeat with your device in operation.

If I were making the sort of claims you are, I would provide the above at a minimum.

I have no interest in spending my hard earned money to try & prove our collective point.

Read what Ken has written & the thread(s) he linked.

[did I miss anything?]

GA - Garthh - I absolutely support the submission of independent testing and definitive proof. If they can prove it works just as they claim, then good. If not, then they need to stop trying to sell it until they can prove it.

Do NOTE - I am NOT SELLING anything - I am reporting that some opinions expressed here DO NOT reflect REALITY as I have TESTED it.

Get over your whining -

rcb

I'm interested in facts & reality.

What would lead us to believe your opinion reflects facts or reality?

When you have some feel free to share when you have some of either.

I am TESTING - what are you DOING

bye

Hello rcbondsr

<"....I am TESTING - what are you DOING....">

I am researching, also trying to prevent you both wasting a non-renewable amount of your lifespan, at the same time hoping that you don't make a fool of yourself here, and require this sign

Tests, to be true tests, must by their very nature, be truly verifiable by independent researchers and test laboratories.

I trust you don't take offence, I do have your best interests at heart.

Kind Regards....

LOL - Thanks Sparky -

I do tend to get on my SoapBox now and then - especially when folks tell me that what I am doing is "Wrong" or "NOT REAL"

All this is MY RESULTS - - I will continue to Share REAL results - those who want to think it is NOT REAL - I can not help -

You post was a great reminder -

Thank You

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

rcbondsr - What is so wrong about this? "I absolutely support the submission of independent testing and definitive proof. If they can prove it works just as they claim, then good. If not, then they need to stop trying to sell it until they can prove it." I believe the article broadcast was about a device that someone was selling or at least promoting. The "they" referred to those people. I did not say you were selling them. In addition I find it strange that you replied to my comment when all I did was agree with Garthh. Why not jump on him?

I have no objection to all the anecdotal evidence anyone wants to give, but it is not proof. Some people have too much fun with their anecdotal reports and assume they are proof. I am not calling them liars, but I will only be convinced that HHO works when there are impartial independent tests and a rigorous scientific explanation of exactly how it works. If it really works, provably, that's good. If not, then go back and tinker with it some more, perhaps a breakthrough will happen.

My apology for my mistake - -

rcb

I'm Breaking ground on a new biodiesel production plant. Gathering as much used vegetable oil from as many places as possible.

I do plenty of testing, trying to improve our methods & reduce costs. The fuel we make has undergoes periodic 3rd party testing & passes ASTM specs.

Unfortunately our neighbors burned down our chemical storage & fab shop, office, electrical service.....

I gather plenty of data & run various tests. I have to do more than hold up a sample & proclaim it good.

When people ask I try to help them make informed decisions about using biodiesel.

Example: I would never suggest someone with an 25 year old pickup start off using 100% bio [2-5% & watching the hoses & filters]. I always try to provide as much information as people want [usually too much].

Hello rcbondsr

Imagination, coupled with personal opinion, is surely a wonderful thing.

Sadly, nothing you have said, nor the links you list, contain independently verifiable facts and truth.

Sincerity of belief is never a substitute for truth.

Kind Regards....

Verifiable ?? YOU can verify the things I report - no third party needed for an ENGINEERING group. I provided Links to the Plans I used - If your OPINION is that it HAS to be WRONG - PROVE IT - TESTING IS THE ANSWER

Obviously blinded by opinion - Engineers TEST - mechanics follow other folks plans.

rcb

rcbondsr - No, it is not for each of us to verify by building or buying an HHO device and trying it for ourselves. It is not for us to prove our opinion is right or wrong. It is up to those people who believe it works to get a respected independent unbiased body to test it and definitively answer the question for the rest of us.

Some people believe in faith healing and some don't, but when a group of doctors confirms the total overnight healing, complete with before and after X-rays, MRIs, CAT scans and other tests, then even unbelievers begin to doubt their unbelief. Do the equivalent with HHO and the same will happen. Have the independent tests, get the scientific explanation of how it works in detail, then no one can doubt it.

Stay in your rant from atop the soapbox and you will be dismissed as just another crackpot. I am sure you want to be believed, so take the steps needed to be so. Anger and frustration at the disbelief of others is harmful to you. God bless.

My objection is that several folks here are expressing opinions as if they were FACTS -

Stating that someone who reports that "anecdotal evidence" is wrong WITHOUT testing

is not helpful to EITHER party.

I know the results of my tests each time I fill up - If you do not wish to reduce your consumption - ignore my reports. BUT do not claim that I do not know how much gas I am burning per mile -

rcb

I know the results of my tests each time I fill up - If you do not wish to reduce your consumption - ignore my reports. BUT do not claim that I do not know how much gas I am burning per mile -

Please expand upon that.

You keep repeating the same vague claims on this & other threads.

Put up or..............

still waiting for facts!

1992 Ford F350 200k - historical average 7.5 mpg / with hydroxy 10 mpg

1985 subaru gl 300k - historical average 20 mpg / with hydroxy 27 mpg

Starting test on 93 Nissan - Historical record 24 mpg -

using chemical additives - claims are 10 to 60 % - testing will tell

Folks working on these problems report a wide range of results.

How well maintained is the engine - are you driving a consistant route - using the same brand of gas - do you actually PRACTICE filling up the same way at the same pump -

Some people are better at this sort of thing - some - are still trying -

Hydroxy is a problem for the newer cars ( except maybe flex-fuel ) because the

system is designed to achieve a certain level of O in the exhaust - Hydroxy ABOVE a certain (variable) amount increases the O in the exhaust - the computer adds fuel to "correct" the balance of the system. -

No conspiricy here - simple problem of different algorithms trying to solve the same problem, and getting in each others way.

Add to that a complex regulatory system - and the problem is less easily solved.

My Senator has been helpful in dealing with the EPA - but it is not a SIMPLE fix for the complex of regulations we have stacked up.

IF we could get a "Straight Forward" system to add to each vehicle - and got the MEDIAN savings reported by folks who have been doing this for a while -

RASH STATEMENT AHEAD

We could reduce the FUEL consumed in this country by 25% within 12 month, at a cost of about $300 per vehicle.

Several groups are working on the various parts of this puzzle.

I will continue to provide my anecdotal notes here from time to time.

rcb

Great post Ken -

The quote at the bottom is Hydro4000 claiming OTHER systems do not work -

I do not know anyone who has one - The amperage drawn is lower than I expect for units producing 2 to 3 LPM ?? I am interested in the design, and will try to find their patent pending material.

The TV station test is interesting also - the mileage at the start is also BELOW epa ratings. They are re-testing and expect to update in July - I have bookmarked the page -

My F350 with 460 was acquired with blow head gaskets - and over-heated enough to change the color of several cylinders - at 212,000 Miles I replaced the Head Gaskets,

- and went back to driving - not a bad $700 truck but the mileage was 7 1/2 = I have done nothing else to the truck but test Hydroxy and Chemical additives -

MPG started with 3,000 to 4,000 miles of history - from my reciepts - I keep them and write the mileage on each one.

The Subaru was bought for $160 at 296,000 miles - not running - I got it running and drove it for about 4000 miles before starting my experiments - again NOT CHANGING any thing except what I am testing -

The Nissan I am testing now has about 210,000 and the history from the previous driver said 24 to 26 - I got 24 on my first tank - added some chemicals - and am still driving.

Hope - is mostly INTERNAL - my path is LISTEN to everyone and TEST the things that I can afford to test -

I started a thread about Jarboes Mill - check it out - I can not go - but Several Devices will be in one place with the designers and builders there to talk to.

Lots of things SEEM unlikely - that are real - been there - got the scars -

I am not going to rebuild old beat up engines to get them to spec. - Just run them as they are and see what happens when I change something that I CAN change - and REPORT to rest of the folks that can INFLUENCE the next design.

I still have quotes from SWI for testing my engine design, and after it is running will wind up paying someone like them to test it. -

MEANWHILE I test what I can as I can -

Fuel systems can give 50% boost - so I will work on them while finishing my engine, and try to get to 150 MPG instead of 100 -

Hope - is internal - you have to decide to deal with the world -

I stayed out of politics after Nam - now I see the error of that choice.

Transportation systems I CAN provide CHOICES for - and shall.

Be Well - Keep Testing

rcb

GA, Ken. You said it much better than I was able to.

Thanks.

If you haven't already, you should look at this site on the Hydro4000. A month ago, Jamie Holmes, the reporter for WPTV (clicking on his pick at the bottom of the page takes you to the report) wrote to say that the Hydro 4000 people did not have his permission to use his picture, and that he had talked to management at his station. But a month later, his picture is still there, appearing to endorse the product. Hmmm.

Before too long, the retest will be done. It will be interesting to see how it comes out.

Badly I expect - That is not a well done system -

For a real package look at www.hydrogen-boost.com

or www.smacksboosters.110mb.com

BOTH of which are KNOWN to work by the Hydroxy Community.

Their are always frauds around money and NEW "applications" for consumers.

I have no way to tell everyone HOW to DISCRIMINATE -

My TESTING shows that the sites above DO what they SAY.

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

CHEERS MATE.......I for one am in complete agreement with you.

Working on one myself. May start a forum to compair results when it is working on line in my S10, 1995 with 156k......

Onward............

If you are going to talk about a carburetor, please use the correct spelling of the word.

if you are going to post with concern. please do so as a contributing member.

Hello rcbondsr

There is no such thing as an "Electrolytic Carburettor", except one referred as that in a Patent - Refer: http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/PatE8.pdf

Please note the final sentence on that Patent: <"....Manifestly, the construction shown is capable of considerable modification and such modification as considered within the scope and meaning of the appended claims is also considered within the spirit and intent of the invention....">

Of course, on that .PDF document, no claims are appended.

The drawings are well-done and pretty to look at.

I do note that the "Pole Changer", as shown, is totally unnecessary, although it does add to the complexity of that carburettor, and may well fool those who do not properly understand basic Chemistry and/or Physics.

I also note that for the water in the carburettor to be conductive, Sulphuric Acid is added, thus with a fast and fizzing electrolysis continuing, (It has to, so that enough Hydrogen and Oxygen can be made to run any engine, even a small one), Sulphuric Acid mist will inevitably be drawn up from the surface of the liquid and that Sulphuric Acid mist will be drawn into the cylinders of the engine, corroding it quite quickly, along with the exhaust system, and anyone who stands too close to the exhaust outlet. (Don't sniff the exhaust gases, you will ruin your breathing apparatus).

I have used correct spelling for "Carburettor".

There are Electrolytic Capacitors, which are very different.

There are Electrolytic Cells, also different, and please note that even a successful Patent Application does not mean the Patented object is properly effective.

Kind Regards....

Thank You

I am a bit sloppy with the spelling at times -

That carburettor was demonstrated on a Model T - worked as described.

The inventor was a city engineer for Dallas, designed the traffic light system we use today, and he and his son built the carburettor.

The pole changer probably came from Tesla - though that is pure speculation. Several people were trying to "break water" and other interesting things, and had a fairly active correspondence.

I often wonder what future archaeologists will work from - all these electrons will vanish, with even less evidence of their existence.

Be Well

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

Yea, and I bet you believe in Global Warming!!!!!!!

Why is it every time running a car on Hydrogn brings out he de_bunkers, like honey draws flies?

You know it works, I know it works, you must work for or have some vested interest in keeping this technology from being developed....

When I hear guys like you, I think thee protest to much, makes me even more sure it works

Geez, guess we cant send a lander to Mars, to far away.........

Ken,

GA from here.

Stu

Dear Ken,

I do not look at this as a perpetual motion machine. I may have the definition of perpetual motion all wrong, but, I feel pretty sure you may give me a lesson.

we are looking for a hydrogen generator small enough to run one automobile, using a larger alternator and an moderately sized battery or two, connected to a properly constructed fuel cell.

I do believe trying to have hydrogen fueling stations like current gas stations will never happen.

Sorry bud, I think maybe you should subscribe to the KISS theory on this one.

By the way, Google Wright Bros. propeller, they were way ahead, earlier I forgot to say build one by hand today as efficient. But, of course the builder today already knows it can be done, just reference the Wright Bros.

Man, you are just to smart for me, I need to hang with the folks with dirt, blood and cuts, that are to stupid to be working on something that is working right in front of them. I guess, what they are seeing is a figment.

I am just now beginning to believe that if one cannot see or even allow himself to believe by way of the experimentation going on, sans giant grants.

Comes down to this.....If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!

Maybe give me a run down on overhauling a v6, 30 valve, twin overhead variable cam timing, electronic fuel injected fully drive by wire engine.....You do that, I may be impressed. I would be the same as me understanding most of the stuff you write about my post.

Give us a break, Talk at my level, sounds like a doctor telling me my diagnosis and not having a clue what he said. I know its hard for you, just give it a whirl.....

Also, we are schemers. Sure hope you are not subscribing to the biggest scheme of all Barrak Hussien Obama.......and we cannot forget the Nobel Prize winning Al (cardboard man) Gore. This cycle is worse than having a root canal without novacain, cocaine, morphine, or something to kill the pain. Sorry!

Need to keep it clean here.....

Looking forward to the reply. By the way what do you do as a profession? Don't answer if it is to personal, just interested. No matter what anyone says, good or critical, I always look for the few things I can learn and take with me...

See ya,

Hi RiverRat,

Mayby I can help bridge the gap between the greasemonkeys and the eggheads.
My 2002 Isuzu Axiom 2wd v6 2.5l makes 230 hp without needing 2 intake and 3
exhaust valves, but it is drive-by-wire and coil-on-plug. After letting a
"friend" drive my 63 Studebaker, straight-6 auto 1/2 ton zip-van, I had
to rebuild the engine. Took me about 2 months. I know there are things
we can do to our cars that will boost 1) horsepower, 2) torque, 3) gas
mileage. I added 1/2 cup of fuelinjector cleaner to a tank of gas a few
months ago and got 5% better mileage. I added 3 psi to my tires when they
were low and got 3% better mileage. If I add a turbo, I can boost all 3:
power, torque and mileage. Scientist and engineers have completely
explained how all these tricks work.

You got better mileage by making
the change you describe, but without having an engineer study the
before and after combustion process inside your engine, we don't know
exactly what is going on inside the cylinders. Did you pull the heads
before and after and mic the cylinders? Check for rough patches?
Deposits?
Without these kind of before-and-after facts, we are all just guessing.

Hi Ken,

Just thought I'd point out the typo before anyone gets confused:

"which provides (25% of that 75%) 190 kWh of energy to run the car"

should be:

which provides (25% of that 75%) 190 Wh of energy to run the car

Cheers,

TG

Good catch! A factor of 1000 can make a big difference in the energy balance.

I think these are not perpetual motion machines (duh) - they are a special type of electric car. A normal electric car uses batteries to run an electric motor. These new cars use batteries to split water in to hydrogen and oxygen, and then burn the hydrogen in an internal combustion engine (what do they do with the oxygen?).

Engine efficiency is pretty far outside of my area, but I'm inclined to agree that trying to burn two different fuels (hydrogen and gasoline) in the same engine at the same time is a loser: an engine designed and tuned to burn one efficiently will not be tuned to burn the other.

Again this is way outside my comfort zone, but based on my profound ignorance I can imagine that with careful electrode design it might be possible to make an electrolysis system for splitting water that would be extremely efficient (since I don't know much of anything I'll bet it could be 75% efficient).

So now in my dreams I see an IC engine designed specifically to burn hydrogen. Because the fuel is homogeneous (not a mixture of similar molecules as is the case with gasoline), the combustion in more complete and the engine is more efficient. In fact (since this is my dream) it turns out that this new hydrogen burning engine is 51% efficient, while the best electric motor is only 38% (this is still my dream). So in this scenario the battery-electrolysis-combustion engine would be the winner with 75% x 51% = 38.25% efficiency.

Well, depending on the type of device you are speaking of, some of them ARE purporting to provide perpetual motion. For instance, the type of device I was speaking about originally (I started this thread) does not rely on electrolysis or the input of any energy at all (I'm not going to quibble over the energy needed to suck air through a mason jar of water), so it is NOT a perpetual motion machine. And by the way, there is some evidence that it actually can, in some circumstances, slightly enhance mileage because the water vapor can have an affect on speed of combustion similar to using fuel having higher octane; my main greviances were that the science used to explain it was all wrong, the mileage improvements were surely greatly exaggerated, the device can cause damage to the vehicle yet warranties are most probably voided, and the scammers promoting this nonsense are charging their clueless victims hundreds of dollars for less than five bucks worth of hardware and a line full of bull-sh_t.

Now, if a system simply uses a battery which is charged at home, etc., and the battery provides electrolysis for the hydrogen needed for internal combustion (a HUGE ineffeciency compared to just using the battery for an electric motor), there there is no claim of perpetual motion there, either. But if the device is for the purpose of adding more power (to get more mileage) to the vehicle by using any of the electricity it generates for the electrolysis needed to produce the hydrogen, as I _THINK_ you are suggesting, then that device IS for perpetual motion (duhhhh) because, in a nutshell, they would necessarily have to be providing more energy than they consume (surely you will agree that if it were just the opposite -- that the device would consume more energy than it would provide -- then it would not be perpertual motion nor would it be desireable to use in any vehicle).

Now let's look at the device. If it really works, then once it is running we should be able to disconnect the battery and eliminate that from further consideration so that we would have an engine running on hydrogen generated by electrolysis from the electricity provided by the alternator driven by the engine. We should be able to take the exhaust (100% water vapor) and cool it down into pure water which would be returned to the electrolysis unit to replace the exact same amount of water which was just used to produce that much exhaust. So we would then have a closed system where no water is ever lost; a system which simply vents the exhaust and instead relies on a tank of water (like a gas tank) still operates on the same principle, and both systems would be perpetual motion machines.

Even if it were somehow possible to miraculously achieve 100% efficiency (no lost energy due to noise and vibrations, or heat loss (including infra red) and friction -- wind resistance against moving parts outside the engine as well as internal friction in the engine, belt and pulleys, electrical resistance in the wiring, and any engine support mechanisms such as water pump and oil pump -- it doesn't do any good unless it can provide energy for its intended purpose (powering a vehicle), and that means that it MUST provide more energy out than energy that goes in -- perpetual motion. By the way, you probably don't realize that if you draw current from an alternator to power a 1 horsepower electric motor, that the opposing magnetic force that the flow of current creates in the alternator is going to be 1 horsepower (assuming a 100% efficient system). People who come up with (or fall for) these schemes don't seem to understand that very simple principle of physics; instead, they think the alternator is spinning so why not use the 'free' energy it could provide. They don't realize that the more energy that is drawn from the alternator, that the harder it is to turn the alternator. That is a FACT!!!

Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE for your system to work.

Bill Velek

Let's consider The economic ramifications.

Assuming this stuff works.

Why would the major vendors Delco, moog, bosch,nipondenso, hatiachi, seimens.... or even Ford, GM, Mopar pass up the money to be made? Any of these companies could easily use their vast resources & connections to fly through the legal & regulatory hoops. No for profit will pass up easy money & it would be easy money, if it worked........................................................

The reaction in the combustion chamber is easily shown to change by measuring the exhaust gases.

Emissions are regularly show to decrease. - enough reason to use one for me.

Mileage increases more than 10% in more than 1/2 the vehicles with no additional electronics added.

Actual experience and testing trumps theory and calculation - at least for those of us who buy gas at the pump.

rcb

Testing - Testing - Testing

Still Waiting for details of the

Results, Results, Results

I agree that the mason jar device from the TV new story is almost certainly a scam. The claims have been sufficiently debunked in this discussion. I'm sure that there will be some engines that are so badly tuned (maybe sparking too early) that the presence of water vapor actually makes a small improvement in efficiency by slowing down the combustion by a few milliseconds. Any small increase in efficiency in these cars will probably be offset by the cars that performed worse.

As I said this is well outside my comfort zone. But it does seem to me that electrolysis is the type of process that could be made very efficient - no moving parts except the electrons, ions and bubbles. So my suggestion was that it might be possible to combine a very efficient system for hydrolysis and a very efficient hydrogen engine (maybe a turbine) that will have a combined efficiency greater than an electric motor (which if I had to guess is probably is the 30 to 40% range). You state however that this would be a HUGE inefficiency, and if that is the fact then it's good enough for me.

I don't have any illusions about perpetual motion. My question was about whether there is a more efficient system to get power from the batteries to the wheels than an electric motor.

A typical electric motor is 80% efficient. A highly efficient electric motor, powered through a highly efficient controller can be 93-94% efficient, including controller losses. LiIon batteries are typically over 90% efficient, so with today's technology, efficiency from plug to wheel can be 85% or so.

The figure you mentioned earlier of 75% eff for electrolysis is very close, with highly efficient systems getting around 80%. 35% efficiency for an engine powered by hydrogen would be considered very high for a diesel, and much higher than you could reasonably achieve with a spark ignition engine. so tomorrows tech battery-to-hydrogen-to-engine efficiency would be about (90% x 80% x 35%) 25%, much lower than 85%.

However, even this is not what is proposed in the water-for-fuel scams. In these, the battery is of starting size -- large enough to power a car for a distance measured in feet or meters. Therefor the energy for electrolysis must come from the engine, through the alternator. With current technology, this means that the efficiency of the electrolysis portion must be about 500% simply to sustain the process, let alone to produce any usable power. In other words, that amount of H2/O2 fuel produced is 1/5 of that to simple allow the engine to sit their idling, let alone to actually move the car.

Water-for-fuel mileage improvement scams are a variation on this, in which the energy from the hydrogen and oxygen is 1/5 that used to create the mixture. Promoters claim that there is some magical effect by which this H2/O2, (typically 1/1000 to 1/100 the total fuel injected) fundamentally changes the thermodynamics of the engine. There is no university-level research which indicates that this is the case. The expectation is that the mileage should be reduced slightly, but the energy used (and H2/O2 produced) is so slight as to be unmeasurable.

Ken, Del, all of you guys, I follow the formulae and equations to a Tee, and understand the physics of it all, but it leaves me with a question about WWII history as I have often read it, never seeing any statement debunking what I've read. That concerns water injection to aircraft piston engines, in order to generate a power level called (at least in my reading) "Wartime Emergency Power". Supposedly, a short period of water injection let the engine produce 4-8% more power (the numbers were never clear, but the extra speed they supposedly gave the prop planes would account for about that much extra power) at the cost of greatly over-heating an engine. So it would enable the plane to outrun pursuit, and limp home the rest of the way, at the cost of an engine teardown and rebuild.

Stupid question time. Was it all hokum? I'm beginning to think it had to be.

Mike

Ken:

Thanks. I gave you a "good answer" on that one. I never was clear on WHY that should work, but understood that it did (if I hadn't read it wrong, anyway), so it's good to know not only why, but how, and what the limitations are. So, I guess, if you had to run 12.5 to compression or greater (shaved heads, pop-up pistons, stoker crank, etc.) and only had a lower octane gas available, you could do that with water injection, to at least allow for transit of the affected vehicle, until you could get it to where you either a) had higher octane fuel available, or b) could park it till more favorable running conditions could be found.

But I guess if you had that situation, you could save a potential (and costly) engine rebuild by trailering it, or even having it shipped, from a to b.

Mike

Thanks for the info. Its obvious that the water as fuel is a scam. And now with your numbers it's clear that hydrolysis/hydrogen combustion is far less efficient than an electric motor. I've got to say that I'm surprised that electric motors are so efficient.