Finally! A Great HHO test! (Run your car on water!)

Nicely done!

Of course, the true believers will still pick apart the whole thing and claim the system "wasn't installed correctly", or "wasn't tuned right". 

I agree with the science of the previous post. I agree, considering the limited scope of science that was considered. The only issue is that there are other methods of not only producing HHO, apart from brute force electrolysis, like the utilization of harmonic resonant frequencies, but there are also additional methods of producing electricity, apart from the alternator/generator. What do internal combustion engines produce apart from horsepower, torque, noise, and exhaust? Waste heat. A lot of it, at that. There are methods of utilizing that waste heat to produce electricity. Pelter cells are one such method and if you do not believe me, there are certain automobile manufacturers like BMW who are contemplating their use to replace the alternator in some of their vehicles. If waste heat can replace an alternator, it can produce HHO. Your science is correct, but you don't think outside of the alternator.

You need to read the rest of the thread, before you shoot your mouth off

Kind of difficult to do with my Blackberry, but when I get my PC back up, I will. I recognized the part about the waste heat, but I saw no mention of the actual utilization of the waste heat to produce HHO. If it is located somewhere on all of the tiny re:'s, then I apologize. If it was on this original post, I must have Blinked. ;-) I do know that HHO will assist on a more complete combustion cycle and for every measurable amount of combustible gas that enters a combustion chamber that is created by something that would otherwise have gone to waste, you will see an increase in efficiency. You know what? I once tested a chemical hydrogen generator that I constructed for my 1988 Honda Accord test vehicle. Granted, it was an H2 generator and not an HHO generator, but I was able to achieve 50 mpg with a 2.0 liter engine with a carb and a slipping transaxle. Those gains were certainly attributed to the hydrogen that was not being created by an alternator. The same would prove to be true with any measurable amount of HHO that is created without the use of an alternator and by utilizing what would otherwise go to waste.

What do internal combustion engines produce apart from horsepower, torque, noise, and exhaust?

Huge profits for the entire automotive, marine, construction and power generating industries.

If waste heat can replace an alternator, it can produce HHO.

Of course. One BMW prototype uses heat from exhaust gas recirculation to generate as much as 250 watts*. If this were used to power an electrolysis unit, you could expect to get perhaps as much as 175 watts worth of H2 out. However, meaningful amounts of EGR occur only at relatively high engine outputs. So, if the engine is producing 20,000 watts at cruise, then you could expect perhaps 100 watts Peltier output, and 70 watts of H2 output. That could improve fuel efficiency by .3% or so, (on a big Bimmer, maybe from 15 mpg to 15.045 mpg.) if you chose to use the entire Peltier output for this purpose. At H2 volumes about 20 times greater, you might start to see some very slight additional improvement in efficiency from improvements in flame front speed.

All this has nothing to do with the standard HHO device, however. There are no currently marketed HHO devices which are powered by waste heat conversion devices, so all the currently marketed ones consume at least 5 times more energy than the caloric value of the H2 produced. They produce such infinitesimal output that the slight additional alternator draw does not significantly reduce performance.

The obvious hitch in all this is that if you have created electricity "for free" from waste heat, the very last thing you would want to do is make H2 to burn in a hideously inefficient engine. You'd be throwing more than 80% of energy "gained". It would be far more efficient to simply run an electric motor (at 90% efficiency, at the motor output) rather than incurring the significant losses in electrolysis (70% efficient) in addition to the huge ICE losses (25% efficient, at best, at cruise power) (for an overall efficiency of 17.5% at the flywheel).

(The BMW dual fuel H2/petrol car is obscene for this reason. H2 takes a great deal of energy to create, compress, refrigerate, and transport. Subsequently throwing out most of its energy by burning it is absolutely crazy, environmentally. Commercially, almost all H2 is produced from reforming methane (natural gas), typically throwing off the CO2 released into the environment. The BMW would be far more efficient if it ran directly on natural gas, without all the conversion losses. Compounding this inherent inefficiency is the fact that the BMW's H2 boils off when the car is not being used. I'm sure they got subsidies to produce it.)

* This is about 10% of the typical 200 amp (2400 wat) BMW alternator. Of course the "cool" side of the junction is kept cool with engine coolant, adding to the load on the cooling system. Peltier junctions are notoriously inefficient, so I doubt that there is a net gain of 250 watts. Then there is the additional weight of the Peltier heat exchanger, additional weight of the electrolysis unit, additional cost, etc.

Ken,

Fantastic post!

Hello Blink

I would have rated your topic Post, but no facility to do that, so Rated the Topic instead.

Great research you have done, and I trust we won't see so many "Over-Unity" power devices mentioned at CR4 again.

Kind Regards....

Nice try, but I believe you'll have better luck convincing the flat Earth crowd that the world is round. I don't know if you're a Star Trek fan, however an alien race namely the Borg have a catchy little phrase "resistance is futile".

It seems like every time you mention hydrogen the Google bot's Place ads at the bottom of the blog for "run your car on water" and the like.

So give up Ken, your post uses too many big words and numbers. Click the link at the bottom of the page and you'll get an attractive lady in a short skirt promising to save you money.

Joule seconds, BTUs, and the like don't compare with the numbers 38 24 36 you're probably helping them sell their scams.

Hey you tricked me!!!!!!!!!

I was ready to harang the evolving cast true belivers.

How dare you bring science & evidence to this sacred subject

Please reply so we can vote you another GA

Once again you've made your case clearly and reasonably. Thanks.

While I have some understanding of the people who run these scams (they just want our money) I'm mystified by the innocent believers. These schemes have been around for decades, do they really believe that all the conventional experts are so stupid that they'd overlook such an obvious advantage (if it in fact worked)? Perhaps they imagine they'll be the next Lysenko, Reich or Behe and turn the science world upside down with their brilliance.

Although I wonder what would happen if we combined Brown's gas with rare earth magnets AND homeopathic crystals...

As someone who believed in HHO extending mpg for a time, until critical mpg tests revealed the truth, I would say that unless all are equally cluey & educated & experienced in every field there will always be naive people who tend to believe what they are told- see in ads- are told by politicians & BSA(same)?. The bottom line is that we, as all life, come from birth to learn more & more- then we start to forget- then we die- this means that there is nothing new under the sun- just new to us at a stage of our life- in summation, life is a total waste of time & effort- if physical life is all there is.

The first part of your post ("there will always be naive people") is a great argument for more quality education at an earlier stage in a child's life. The middle part of your post ("we, as all life, come from birth to learn more & more- then we start to forget- then we die") is a good argument for not bothering to waste the effort to educate the child at all. The last part of your post ("life is a total waste of time & effort - if physical life is all there is") raises a question that, if eventually answered in the way I hope, will give a bit of a lift to the first and middle parts. And, as a by-product, it will also eradicate the biggest con of all, religion.

My idea is nothing new, but the fact that you yourself do not go on to raise it at the end of your post (especially on a forward-thinking forum like this) interests me enough to add it as an addendum to your post.

A bit of preamble first, though.

When people are confronted with the abyss contained in the last part of your post ("life is a total waste of time & effort - if physical life is all there is") they tend to either jump in no matter what the cost or back off from the edge because of some level of fear. Doing the latter can lead to religion or denial (the same thing?!); doing the former can lead to a sort of rational atheism where each person is alone and there is no external, 'spiritual' point to life.

A lot of CR4 readers will have come to terms with that empty feeling in the pit of their stomachs when, earlier in their lives, they confronted the dilemma outlined in the middle (wasted effort to educate) and last (no point in living at all) parts of your post. However, most if not all will have got used to the cosmological isolation feeling and might even quite enjoy the knowledge that at least they are seeing reality for what it is, even though more or less all they are and all they have done will one day be a plume or mound of dividing/decomposing molecules.

However, there is a hidden solution within your post, and this is the point I wish to make. If we can continue passing the baton of education to our successors as we are doing, and achieve a higher level of 'quality' knowledge at a younger age (i.e. don't waste a child's time on religion and superstition, or on having to deal with poverty, abuse, fear or pain), then we might have future generations able to solve all three issues raised in your post. This could theoretically be achieved by evolving the human body into a much more durable and integrated entity. A body which improves with time as a factor of improvements in human technology.

It is already happening: cleaner health practices (MRSA etc a blip, hopefully!), improved medicines, replacement body parts, possibility of genetic modification and enhancement, electronic/computerised body implants.

Indeed, it is the knowledge that life IS so short and so wasteful of all that is learned during that life that the pressure is kept on for us (religious fantasists and troglodytes apart) to extend and improve that life as much as possible.

Cutting to the chase - let's say humanity survives long enough to create a reality where humans (barely recognised as such from our 21st century viewpoint) have no genetically built-in obsolescence and are relatively invulnerable to external threat (the last part of your post) and are able to interconnect with each other in a way that means no knowledge is ever lost in the sense it is at the moment when one human dies (the middle part of your post), then no knowledge will need to be relearned and, should it be meaningful at that stage to talk about human reproduction in the way we currently do, the 'new child' will not have to go through a process of sifting the truth from silly YouTube videos of HHO etc posted by either the naive or the trickster (the first part of your post).

And, finally, the notion that a durable, 'networked' humanity could be possible also deals with the abyss implied in the last part of your post. That is, when and if a human can live for an unrestricted length of time without being isolated from the rest of humanity, the whole issue of the abyss fades away in some sense. Humanity becomes its own wish-fulfilment, its own god, its own heaven on earth. There may be no need for false hope when there is no real threat - except, of course, from the somewhat more cosmological issues like planets getting cold as suns switch off and the universe eventually contracting back into a singularity...

Thank ye for your excellent answer- I will print it out & refer to it at my leisure- the general drift of your post is that human beings are just a animal & that any improvement can only come from man made efforts- well!!- please look at what man has stuffed up!!- then look at the most complex thing man has made- the space shuttle- compare it against the simplest bacterium- the bacterium is 100 times more complicated than the shuttle!!. No doubt you will say"but evolution over billions of years has done this!!)- Well pilgrim, if we wait billions of more years, maybe man will get something right!!. In the meantime, any who feel there is/are superior intelligences beyond our animal senses- feel free to believe!!.

Joe, G.A.

But I will add one more requirement to your Utopian world described above. Knowledge is not an absolute. We need diversified opinions and experienced in order to allow for filtering and improvement of knowledge, otherwise it is only another form of static religion that cannot be criticised.

Our present society shares knowledge fairly well but every new acquired topic must pass the test of time and logic. This is what makes the difference between the "enlighten" and the "gullible" person. While we all are a bit of both at times, some people will regularly assimilate info and take it for truth without question. Especially when it comes from "trusted channels" like religious leaders, scientists or three hugger. While they might think that they are enlightened by this knowledge, they are actually dummer for it simply because they will force it on others even when it doesn't make sense.

Unfortunately, there will always be real truth and false truth floating around. The difference between the two is not clear cut. We have to question everything we learn, not absorb it blindly.

This is why making everybody's knowledge available to others is an interesting concept that is fairly well implemented these days, but we cannot expect an "automatic downloading" of everything into the kids' brain to improve the human society.

P.S. As far as I am concerned, there is some good knowledge to acquire from religious leaders, scientists, three hugger and YouTube. Just not everything they say. Don't be affraid to question every pieces of info you are given.

Excellent information Thank you.

When we get stuck with scammers claims, we should always refer to this post.

Thank you Ken.

DaveB

Good post, but you do have one error

------------

They even claim that large portions (15%, 20%, 30%) of the fuel going into an engine is not burned in the cylinder – which is completely untrue.

------------

The claim for the unburned petroleum is accurate, and one of the primary reasons for the requirement of a catalytic converter, to reduce the unburned hydrocarbons that create smog. But don't you just love these little guys, they have such a wild time tilting at windmills.

Hello Guest

Recently catalytic converters have been discussed on another blog. I had always believed catalytic converters require a slightly richer than optimal mixture. It turns out for a converter to a function correctly the mixture is constantly varying from slightly lean to slightly rich.

The converter is dealing with more pollutants than just unburned hydrocarbons, the following link has some good information on the functioning of a three-way converter.

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

modern electronically controlled engines leave little if any unburned hydrocarbons, except when the converter is in a regeneration cycle. Ignoring my avatar at idle, no engine that is not malfunctioning is going to dump 15% of its fuel unburned out the tailpipe.

Somewhere around here, I think I have the specs for the Reva into which this Genepax device is installed. The Reva website doesn't give a direct indication of the kW rating of the motor, but I think it is on the order of 10kW. (The battery pack is 10 kWh, and the range is 80km, or one hour at max speed.) The Genepax device is 300 watts, so it clearly does not power the car in any direct sense: it would take over 30 hours to charge the car's battery pack using this device.

Certainly, putting water alone into the device will not produce net energy. There are loads of watery reactions in which H2 is liberated (the most common, perhaps, being Drano in water... or simply charging a non-sealed lead-acid battery), and maybe this device uses that technique to produce H2. The Purdue system of aluminum in gallium legitimately produces H2, but gets it's energy from the aluminum (more correctly from whatever is powering the aluminum plant), and that aluminum must then be recycled, etc. etc. etc.

I suppose we have to allow for things lost in translation, but the term fuel cell seems to be too loosely used. In the Dennis Less Hydrogen Assist Fuel Cell there is no fuel cell at all: it's an electrolyzer -- the reciprocal to a fuel cell. In the Lee case, he uses the term intentionally, to confuse gullible people into thinking that there is a connection between his scam and the real fuel cells in vehicles like the Honda FCV. In a real fuel cell vehicle like the Honda, putting an electrolyzer on board and powering the electrolyzer with the fuel cell output would be a sad attempt to create a perpetual motion machine.

If Genepax really has patents pending, then there should be no need to be so secretive about the process -- and they could at least describe it generic fashion, explaining where the energy is actually coming from.

I recently saw a video from the Consumer Electronics Show in which a small fuel cell device was "powered" by water, according to the journalist. The device actually used a replaceable cartridge ($20) into which you poured water causing a reaction to occur which liberated H2, which went into the real fuel cell in the device. The output was on the order of 200 watt-hours, making the electricity generated phenomenally expensive. (Where I live, 200 watt-hours from the grid costs $.02 -- 1000 times less, even ignoring the capital cost of the device itself -- which was at least hundreds if not over $1000.)

To believe the Genepax scheme is not a scam, I'd need to see a system diagram and a reasonable explanation. I think the "lost in translation" (and website with no technical details at all) excuse should not play these days, even in a company that is only capitalized to the tune of $400,000 as this one claims to be. Without leaving my neighborhood, I can find people who can do pretty good translations into 20 languages or so, and in Japan, there are millions of people who can do pretty good translations into English -- especially in writing.

What this seems to be claiming is that the device both splits water and then recombines it to produce electricity (and far too little of that to run the car directly) and that all you input is water. If it is to work at all, something other than water must be consumed: water to H2 back to water does not create any net usable energy...

... unless you live in over-unity la-la land, and, as you said in your earlier post, there is no convincing those people that conventional physics, chemistry, or education in general has any utility.

Hello Ken
Thanks for the info. My take on the Genepax is it is a scam. Hopefully I don't get egg on my face as I'm already on record pretty much stating that. As soon as I saw the car I started having flashbacks to the "Dale" if you remember that one.

Seems all you need is an energy crunch, something that resembles a product that you're trying Sell, moves under its own power,and if you're lucky you get a media frenzy started, to help you sell your scam.

The device that you saw at the consumer electronics show, I have also seen. However it was not at the electronics show it was at one of those run your car on water sites. One thing you can say about the scams they don't miss a beat, load up your site with legitimate products, then slip yours in with the rest.

its need recharging ?

where did you get your information from what school book in the 1918,s so now I guess that you tell me that I did not run my car on vapor at 65 mils per hour .

PilondogQaol.com

Tell us more

powerplant

fuel type-before

route

miles

wind direction

temprature

State of battery charge [specific gravity]

Maybe 10,000 miles of data

Repeat with your "device"

Just because you think it works

Don't make it so

Prove IT!!!!!!

thanks for the education

I think the whole notion of injecting HHO is moot, unless it runs the vehicle on 100% water.

I have zero interest in supplementing fossil fuel with HHO, to any fraction of a percentage..

show me a vehicle that runs 100% on water.. thats the product I'd be interested in

naively yours
Jonathan

can i genrate power from this thing to light up my city's ligts ?

Yep. Go down to the river, put up a dam, add a turbine/generator, and Bingo! - you've got electricity for lights.

Hello jin_evil22

There are those who think they can use a torch battery with an inverter, to power their own home.

Thus with several torch batteries, they can light up the suburb.

And with a couple of car batteries, supply enough electricity for a city.

Of course with all the above, they use a battery charger run from the inverter outlet to charge the battery, because otherwise it all stops.

A wonderful over-unity system.

Believe me, there are really folks out there who think that sort of thing is possible, providing the wiring looks complex enough.

Kind Regards....

Many years ago I had a bike with a little generator that rubbed against the wheel to produce electricity. If I used an electric motor to spin the bike wheel could I generate enough power to turn the motor? Or would I need to use an inverter to really make a fool of myself?

Hello bob c

I had one of those rub-against-the-tyre alternators on my bike too.

If you want to look really mysterious, get some heavy red wire and connect via a black-coloured box which contains a circuit board and many pretty resistors etc, and take some photos.

Set up a website, write up a story about how much pedalling effort the unit saves you, sell the unit for $129.95 + post and packing.

With minimal effort you could become a millionaire.

My fee for this advice is a mere $10,000 in advance, plus a royalty fee of $10 for each unit you sell (I'm not greedy)

Kind Regards....

If it saves pedalling at that price I will have 2 please.

BAB

Hello Guest,

That is the picture at left, in all its glory.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

A diagram like that is so basic, because evidently there must be a small propeller inside the black box labelled "Power From Water", as nothing else would do the work.

Power output would be extremely small, and not cost-effective at all.

Kind Regards....

Hi jin_E

You only have yo look at the number of GA's to realize that Sparkstation was/is not new to any field.

You must also see the post in context. It was meant to ridicule the idea of generating electricity from water.

But you are right - that setup will not produce any/much power.

Welcome to CR4,

Mr Sparkstation is one of the great minds on this site. His comment is meant as sarcasm. Welcome to CR4, and enjoy the ride.

That is absolutely frightening!!!

The future with this bunch parallels a sci-fi movie in the far distant future where life has reverted to the iron age but with technology that no is able to repair.

P.S. I was asked to ask a question, so I submitted a question, was asked for more information, which I supplied and have yet to see a response back to my valid question.

I believe the fish is cught by its mouth...

and a Man who tells half truth - tells half a lie.... in the laws concerning polarities... a half truth is 100% lie.

With regards to the Scooter test that you claim to be a scammers lie... Just to inform you. The wind was an insignificant factor during that day since it wasn't strong and that the route of the test was the same.

The odometer was not working on the larger digits... but the lower digits does.

The scooter is still running up to now and there are no rusting irons inside the engine.

The test was not done one time alone... but the one shown in the video was the first unedited video document not intended to show a proof of concept to the public. It was intended to satisfy the experimenters curiosity.

If you will watch the prior videos related to the mileage test done with this scooter ... there was significant increase in top speeds... which lead to doing the mileage test in order to prove or disprove some theories.

Factors involved to consider during the test... The scooters' battery is dead... it serves as a buffer... the alternator of the scooter is primarily the one charging the 5 plate cell inside it. The carb was from junk, the fuel resrerve was not really 250ml... but less than that. But these are insignificant. The fact remains that under the same conditions... with the hydrogen assist 'on' - there is another kilometer obtained.

Recently, a 150cc scooter was also tested with a much more improved system. The scooter is brand new... it makes an average of 6 to 8 km. per Liter after 6 runs without hydrogen assist. It also makes about 740 ppm of CO. With the system hho 'on' at low power... it made emitted only 240ppm of CO. And the mileage gain was 50% at 12km per liter... The cell was switched to high power which is about 7AMPs. only... then the scooter made 24km per liter. more than 300%... The test was done for 3 consecutive days... but this is never shown in public...

I find no reason to convince you or anyone.. there is nothing to prove here specially if you dont deserve this proof.

It's easy to say that it doesnt work specially if you "haven't" done any experiment similar to this yet.

To label someone or anyone as Scammer entails a reaction... this is the reaction in it's low power mode.

A dose of the truth is enough to bring down a mountain of Lies... Or even Half Lies.

Dont take this personally... it's not meant to sound like one... and if you do feel offended... I'm sorry. It is only meant to bring light where it is not invited.

:-) CHEERS!!!

Yet another drive by comment by a "guest"

I find no reason to convince you or anyone.. there is nothing to prove here specially if you don't deserve this proof.

What we don't deserve is more unsubstantiated bull-shine, from yet another thief, trying to drum up support for his latest scam

It's easy to say that it doesn't work specially if you "haven't" done any experiment similar to this yet.

It's not up to us to prove the negative, the lack of actual scientific proof or data is more than sufficent

It's up to you to prove the positive.

we're waiting!!!

Thank you for a most informative post. It might be more believable if you were not hiding behind "Guest"

As I have come to expect from you, you have presented a very well explained reason why this is a scam. for that you shall receive a well deserved GA.

Hi Ken,

Pardon me for starting off with the wrong foot here. At any rate, I respect you and your vigilance about this matter. I agree, frauds should be vigilantly stopped by people who know and who are concerned. I salute you with what you are doing.

I should also thank you for pointing out the questionable areas in my scooter video.

Let me just share with you the story behind it.

Forget about the accuracy of the container I used for my tank, I borrowed it from the workshop where I was working and when I asked my men how much volume it contained he said 250ml. So I labelled it 250ml. in my video. It was only when I was back home when I realized that it was much smaller than 250ml.

At any rate, this is not the point... the point is, the same volume of fuel or petrol was used on both runs... baseline and enhanced.

In Riyadh, the Filipino workers community is only empowered if they have their own scooter... without one, a Filipino worker will be at the mercy of the norms. Every weekend, the Riyadh Bikers Club would meet and make about 100+km touring around Riyadh as a sort of recreation. This tour will have the faster scooters in front of the pack.. and the slow ones will be left at the back. The average speed we cruise is about 50kph. And for the fast ones, they reach top speeds of 90+ with modifications on their engines. I was driving this Dio which was bought and revived from the Junkyard at speeds around 70kph. Continuously for hours. With the Hydroxy on - this scooter is able to keep up with the faster bikes. I dont mind destroying the scooter in the process just to prove something to myself. That if H2 enhancement doesnt work... my bike will be broke after this torture test. Of course, after realizing that there is really an improvement in power with Hydroxy, I try to keep this subtle since - I am in Saudi... I already have been battling some legal wars with my sponsor and this (Water Experiment) is the last thing I needed for him to find a reason to abuse me further. I probably am not in my right mind to do this experiment among all places... in an oil producing country.

To prove my theories to myself, I again made some tests when I was able to come back to my home country... with a VW Beetle... (again, I was convinced.) THen again, with a Mitsubishi on a Dyno... (check my video... "The Fast and the Curious")...

Of course, I also encountered some failure on Dyno Test recently, but it was only an issue on the Alternator drawing to much AMPS and putting too much load on the engine due to my dirty electrolyte... but after I cleaned it - the HP went up again.

At any rate, My advocacy was not mainly on the Gas or Fuel Saving side... it is about Emission Reduction. For what sense do we gain out of saving fuel and money when there's no more planet to enjoy it tomorrow or the day after.

We all breathe the same air... If I am able to reduce my emissions more than half... at the same time increase my oxygen output the more I drive... then I am "Saving the planet" so to speak.

The time I made these videos... I got messages cautioning me to lay low if I fear for my life. No wonder, everyone experimenting about it were all hiding behind their pen names or screen names... no faces shown in videos. I thought, that if this is really a science... then it should be explored further. And if there is indeed some energy in water... then why not harness it?

After all, water is the most abundant energy carrier we can contain in this planet. It answers the practicality issues.

However, I am not preaching about using water per se... I am merely saying that the small amount of energy we can get from it can enhance our slow burning petrol inside our engines.

This is where science should focus.

I have been subjecting my test vehicles with emission testing centers since last year... also dyno testing them. I am also driving them hard and doing street racing from time to time. Which leads me more to believe this works and is worth further research and developing.

20 years ago, my father and I made a small HHO bottle and strapped it into our Volkswagen... it was during the Daniel Dingel hype of his water car. What we made is just a simple 2 rod electrode design... very small production... connected it to the vacuum port of the carby. We only realized that it was actually working after we removed it 1 year after. But Gasoline was so cheap during the mid 80's that we simply didnt bother developing it much... after all, it's just High-school Chemistry stuff.

It was only last early 2007 when adversity came to me in the desert, when I needed to weld racing pipes for scooters in order for my team to survive, when we ran out of welding gas, I just thought of making an improvised welding torch using water... by electrolysis.. while doing it, I though I could use it as fuel or fuel supplement. This started the scooter experiment.

I also realized that it was during the expiration of the patent of Meyer when HHO became a sort of a buzzword. I have been monitoring it for years if there are any open amateur experiments about Water fuel ... and I was surprised to find that they all came out openly.. mid-2007. But there was a sort of fear casted among experimenters.

Sorry if I am writing long... but I need to give you the bigger picture cause the video you saw is merely a tree in the forest.

I intend to make a test protocol which is going to be acceptable and cheap to execute.

I've always had great respect for engineers... my grandfathers are engineers - one of them is a trouble shooter for nuclear subs - works with the US Navy. One is into Shipbuilding... I always have fruitful debates with them, debating with them has always enriched my knowledge on things. Exchanging discussions with you brings back memories of them. I really need to thank you for this.

I also would like to appologize for my subtle sarcasm in my first reply here as guest. I was replying in a hurry when I realized I didnt had a username account here... But I have subscribed with CR4 Magazine for some time already - since I was into designing and building car.. truck prototypes for a while. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression - I didnt mean to hide as a guest. Besides, you are not the enemy. If there's anyone who's going to disprove or validate/ revalidate this science... it's the engineers. :-) Thats the reason why I am submitting my test units to the Dept. of Science and Technology for their evaluation. We are still going to agree on the acceptable protocols which will be discussed anytime this month.

I'll keep you posted.

P.S.

Nice Reverse Trike!.. your avatar... :is it an X-Prize racer?.. :-)

Best Regards.

Please allow me a little time to reply, I normally dont open my mails that much recently.

Good Day Everyone!

Are we talking hydrogen assist here, or HHO? I think they are two totally different concepts...

Here are additional links to the Vancouver Kymco scooter, partially powered by onboard production Hydrogen-Oxygen, on tour, and elsewhere..

Guys, making "hardware" tests imo is more productive than formulating opinions with a slide rule. That's just my two cents, not being an engineer, and all that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kySj4go2W-Y

http://www.viddler.com/explore/earthdaysolar/videos/19/

http://www.viddler.com/explore/gadgeteers/videos/39/

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8et2j_teaser-more-power-mpg-cleaner-exhau_tech

Respectfully yours,

Rob M.

matthiesr at yahoo dot ca

I realized, after my last post, that you are the perpetrator of this scheme. I'd mistakenly thought you were an enthusiastic but ill-informed customer (or "mark" depending upon perspective).

So, obviously, all I said fell on deaf ears, and I assume you know that your scheme does not and cannot work. In prosecuting these frauds, the FTC appears to believe that simply relying on the science is sufficient -- as it should be, if the judges are relatively aware scientific principals. Their position is that these frauds are so patently idiotic, that there will be no need to fire up the EPA dynos. I'm not sure this is a good assumption, but we will see how things go. They are pretty good at prosecuting (having recently negotiated a $10 million settlement against Davison's invention scam) and try to work within the constraints of limited funding. I don't know how things are in Canada.

I suppose your promo material like this was not designed to be laughed at, but I could not help myself. The pointing to a bunch of test equipment, as if this would lend some credibility, is hilarious. All this just to "find the resonant frequency of H2O." All this to support your claim of a 50X increase (25 times over unity, assuming a mediocre 50% efficient electrolyzer to begin with) in oxyhydrogen production.

Guys, making "hardware" tests imo is more productive than formulating opinions with a slide rule. That's just my two cents, not being an engineer, and all that.

You are correct, if your intent is to defraud. It occurs to me that you might not have caught the irony in the title of this thread. We are not HHO promoters, and many CR4 members routinely report HHO promoters to the FTC and FCC, (or similar authorities in other countries) as appropriate. So you are right, that if you want to defraud, then definitely ignore the science and the calculations. Calculations can sink a fraud's ship too quickly. Your 50X improvement (and thus 25 times over unity) claim from above seems plausible to someone who knows absolutely nothing about electrolysis or physics, but is immediately absurd to anyone who does the math.

But the way science and engineering proceeds is to do the calculations first, rather than building the bridge and then seeing if all the people fall into the water when it collapses. Science is inherently skeptical, and relies on skepticism for its strength and validity. One experiment or one calculation is never enough to make solid conclusions -- thus the idea of replication. I didn't quite understand what you said in your video, but you seemed to be saying that there is no need for replications, because you have done the replications... and that somehow there was a connection between your o'scopes and signal generators and those replications. Of course, that is nonsense, scientifically, especially because you are seeking money to promote your... your... "concept" (I am trying to think of something more polite than "scam") . Replications must be done by a different and disinterested party.

Your claim re AC hydrolysis -- that you are the only ones who have worked on the idea is (as you probably know) completely silly. There have been many schemes for reversing polarity at various rates. The simplest AC electrolyzers are very common: the steam generators used in bedrooms. They have two electrodes fed directly from the AC line. They make mainly steam because electrolysis is not instantaneous (so just when the process starts, you stop it and switch polarity), and because the voltage is too high, but I'd expect that you'd find very tiny amounts of liberated H2 and O2 around these units. For productive electrolysis, particularly for the common-ducted case, you would do well to follow the lead of the professionals who make legitimate units for welding purposes. If you have not already found out, AC, pulsed DC, various high and low frequencies all amount to a smoke screen. Legitimate companies with real money and real scientists have already pushed electrolysis to 75% efficiency or so, so the most we could reasonably hope for a small improvement to 90% (from plug to H2).

In any case, CR4 does not allow blatantly commercial posts like yours, even when they are not obviously scams. No loss though, because you could otherwise find that your operations are reported to the Canadian equivalent of the FTC. Because CR4 members value science and engineering, we take some offense to obvious pseudo science, and many of us will routinely report the most egregious examples to the authorities when the perpetrators are seeking money. So you are probably far further ahead to promote your activities at the pseudo science sites, where you will find far more support, and where you are less likely to be turned into the authorities. At some of those sites, you will be seen as a hero.

Here, you say

If you're interested in using this technology, and have bux to bring to the table, contact the Vancouver Gadgeteers club.

At least you say up font what you want.

You also say:

For example, a Vancouver Gadgeteer invented the i-pod eight years before Apple came out with it. He invented it for himself. This is how all of us discoveries were discovered -- we needed it for ourselves, first.

We think we have the cure for cancer, obesity, lymph gland inflammation, et al.

Great stuff! But not the sort of stuff that goes over well here.

Thanks for your continued vigilance Ken

When I read your long-winded posts, not based on actual work, like real people do, I feel that engineers (you?), like lawyers, feel that certain territories should be their excusive franchise.

A wise man said:

"Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic."

R. Matthies

Hydrogen injection

Onboard automotive hydrogen injection systems inject either a hydrogen-enriched mixture, or pure hydrogen into the intake manifold of the engine. In some cases, this is combined with air/fuel ratio and timing modifications^[3][4]. A small amount of hydrogen added to the intake air-fuel charge permits the engine to operate with leaner air-to-fuel mixture than otherwise possible.^[5] As the air/fuel mix approaches 30:1 the temperature of combustion substantially decreases effectively mitigating NO_x production.^[5]

Under idle conditions power is only required for extraneous components other than the drive train, therefore fuel consumption can be minimized. A 50% reduction in gasoline consumption at idle was reported by numerically analyzing the effect of hydrogen enriched gasoline on the performance, emissions and fuel consumption of a small spark-ignition engine.^[6]

Under most loads near stoichiometric air/fuel mixtures are still required for normal acceleration, although under idle conditions, reduced loads, and moderate acceleration, addition of hydrogen in combination with lean burn engine conditions can guarantee a regular running of the engine with many advantages in terms of emissions levels and fuel consumption.^[6]

Increases in engine efficiency are more dominant than the energy loss incurred in generating hydrogen.^[5] This is specifically with regard to use of a onboard hydrogen reformer. Overall computational analysis has marked the possibility of operating with high air overabundance (lean or ultra-lean mixtures) without a substantial performance decrease but with great advantages on pollution emissions and fuel consumption.^[6]

Overall comparing the properties of hydrogen and gasoline, it is possible to underline the possibilities, for hydrogen fueled engines of operating with very lean (or ultra-lean) mixtures,^[7] obtaining interesting fuel economy and emissions reductions.^[6] The concept of hydrogen enriched gasoline as a fuel for internal combustion engines has a greater interest than pure hydrogen powered engines because it involves fewer modifications to the engines and their fueling systems.^[6]

ECU or carburetor modifications are required to establish lean or ultra lean burn engine conditions.^[8][5]

Hydrogen fuel enhancement from electrolysis of water where the required electricity is supplied by the engine's alternator or 12/24-volt electrical system can produce fuel efficiency improvements on an older diesel truck in the order of 4% and similar modest reductions in emissions, and is currently in use in Canada^[9][10][11] and the United States.^[12] However recent tests by consumer watch groups have also shown negative results. ^{[13][14][15] [16]}

Hydrogen injection is similar to both propane injection and nitrous oxide injection.

[edit] Research

A simplified single-step combustion reaction is represented as:

[FUEL] + [HYDROGEN] + [AIR] → HC + CO + CO₂ + H₂O + NO_x

[edit] 1975

Research in 1975 examined hydrogen enhanced gasoline in lean combustion.^[5] John Houseman and D.J Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers titled "On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine", and F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy, also of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, titled "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline."^[5]

[edit] 1977

NASA conducted research using hydrogen as a supplemental fuel to gasoline on a 1969 production engine.^[3] Their research specifically demonstrated that the higher flame speed of hydrogen was responsible for being able to extend the efficient lean operating range of a gasoline engine. They successfully used a methanol steam reformer for in situ production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.

Lean-mixture-ratio combustion in internal-combustion engines has the potential of producing low emissions and higher thermal efficiency for several reasons. First, excess oxygen in the charge further oxidizes unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Second, excess oxygen lowers the peak combustion temperatures, which inhibits the formation of oxides of nitrogen. Third, the lower combustion temperatures in­crease the mixture specific heat ratio by decreasing the net dissociation losses. Fourth, as the specific heat ratio increases, the cycle thermal efficiency also increases, which gives the potential for better fuel economy.^[3] (See also: Lean burn)

[edit] 2002

Research done in 2002 shows that the "addition of hydrogen to natural gas increases the burn rate and extends the lean burn-limit".^[8] Also concluded was that "hydrogen addition lowers HC emissions", and with properly "retarded ignition timing" also reduces NO_x emissions.^[8]

Further research in 2002 achieved results showing "a reduction of NO_x and CO₂ emissions", by modeling an on-board hydrogen reformer and "varying the efficiency".^[6] The research was specifically a "numerical investigation" done to "foresee performances, exhaust emissions, and fuel consumption of a small, multi valve, spark ignition engine fueled by hydrogen enriched gasoline".^[6]

[edit] 2003

In 2003 Tsolakis et al. of the University of Birmingham showed that "partial replacement of the hydrocarbon fuel by hydrogen combined with EGR resulted in simultaneous reductions of smoke and nitrogen oxides emissions (NO_x) without significant changes to engine efficiency".^[17] Similar results have been presented by a team of scientists from Zhejiang University, China, which found that "a little amount of hydrogen supplemented to the gasoline-air mixture can extend the flammability of the mixture... improving the economy and emissions of engines".

[edit] 2004

Test results in 2004 show "that the H₂-rich reformate gas was an excellent NO_x reductant, and can out perform raw Diesel fuel as a reductant in a wide range of operating conditions".^[18] This is referring to Diesel fuel being used in excess, as a reductant, to cool the combustion reaction, which indeed has a mitigating effect on NO_x production.

In 2004 research was conducted concluding that an "SI engine system fueled by gasoline and hydrogen rich reformate gas have been demonstrated" to achieve a "dramatic reduction of pollution emissions".^[19] This was achieved by "extending EGR operation" in addition to consuming "gasoline and hydrogen rich reformate".^[19] Emissions results show that "HC-emissions as well as NO_x-emissions could be reduced to near zero".^[19] Overall a 3.5% reduction in CO₂ emissions was achieved during the "FTP test cycle".^[19] The research also concluded that the exhaust aftertreatment system can be simplified, "resulting in cost reduction for the catalysts".^[19]

The above was ripped from wikipedia, here's a proper link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_injection#cite_note-SI-18

I'm not sure what the point is LOL

I'm sure the drive by guest will stop back & clarify

That's a fact, not an opinion.

You have your wording reversed. There are at least 100 videos and demonstrations on YouTube and elsewhere of HHO devices that can be "shown" to get 30% to 300% better fuel efficiency. Those are opinions, and in most cases, active frauds (thus the FTC's suit against Dennis Lee, for example).

Who is driving the scooter?? Does it appear to be a test technician from the EPA or state authority? If so, she would have been introduced as such. Through the years, naive TV reporters have supported many frauds, because they don't understand scientific method.

The timing method was not shown, but it appears that the half second difference could be explained by human error with a hand held stop watch. With an arrangement this crude, you'd need ten test runs and would need to check for variability among runs before you could draw any conclusions. But more obviously, you need an objective, non-involved operator -- differences in throttle opening make large differences in acceleration.

There are two valid demonstrations: 1. a/b, a/b a/b dyno testing with fuel flow measurement or 2. a carefully-designed road test with onboard fuel flow measurement equipment (also employing a/b a/b a/b comparisons, one immediately after the other). The promoters of these devices actively avoid dynos because they tell the real story. Imagine the billions of dollars such technology would be worth to the auto manufacturers.

This "technology" has been around for over 70 years, and several promoters have been prosecuted for fraud. There is no scientific basis for these devices working, so to demonstrate that they do (going against university studies, federal law enforcement agencies, EPA tests, etc.) requires at least an ordinary, valid, replicable test. This video doesn't come remotely close to meeting that standard.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. I'd be happy to accept even ordinary proof -- a real dyno test with fuel flow measuring equipment.

Then there is the obvious issue of plausibility -- although I understand I am not talking to an engineer, you have at least shown that you have internet access. You can verify from Wikipedia (and hundreds of other sources) that the energy to create hydrogen from electrolysis is greater than the energy released when if burns. The "inventor" (of a concept that was actually invented in the 1930's) says that his cell draws 3 amps at 10 volts: 30 watts. If his system were perfectly efficient (which it is not) then the increase in horsepower from 30 watts worth of hydrogen would be 30 watts, which is 30/746 or .04 hp, not the full 1 hp the "inventor" claims.

Even that assumes that there is no additional engine load from generating the extra current to feed the electrolyzer -- which makes the system operate at a net loss.

But feel free to buy a system for your scooter. Take it to a real motorcycle chassis dyno, and do some valid testing, with an objective operator, and then get back to us.

Hi Ken,

I'm the "inventor". As a side note, I didn't invent anything, I applied already available technology.

The reporter did some rounding up and said it was 1hp. The cell runs 13-14 volts and uses 55 watts from the stator plus I do not have a current limiting circuit to stop it from using some of the energy stored in the battery. It makes about 0.8hp difference.

The effect is very easy to feel with your "ass dyno". I am constructing an electric dyno that will be small enough to measure the difference better than a large chassis dyno used in motorcycle testing. Like you, I want to see some numbers and was not ready for the news guys to come knocking at the time. I will post the information with video as I get it.

I am also building a naked chassis scooter that will be jetted back to observe any available MPG gains. This will have a small gas resevoir and all visible engine and chassis.

I think you guys are doing a good job and some numbers need to be put down for us to examine. Thanks for the forum in which to do it.

best regards,

James

PS I really like the design of your trike. I used to drive a foot forward reverse electric trike two years ago. Gave it up to persue double A-armfront end like yours. Have a look at high performance golf cars dot com for a great little 72 and 84 volt AC system. Perhaps you could use it in combo with your combustion drive?

Hi James,

I appreciate your comments on my trike, and you are precisely on the money re the hiperformancegolfcar people. I've talked with them at some length, and as you may know, they were the supplier for the early Aptera prototype. However, the characteristics are not quite what I need, particularly to win the Progressive Automotive X Prize in my class. In an odd quirk of the rules, in the alternative class, the competition will be largely one of quick acceleration, because several of the alternative class vehicles will be able to drive at speed limits (a requirement of most race segments is that you do not exceed speed limits) while having a comfortable margin above 100 MPGe. (The race is about how fast you can go without eceeding speed limits, and while mainting greated than 100MPGe. So competition will be very close, there may be a certain amount of wheel spinning, and every bit of efficiency counts.

I think you guys are doing a good job and some numbers need to be put down for us to examine. Thanks for the forum in which to do it.

This may not be the best forum. Several HHO threads have been shut down, because they can turn rather commercial, and also because HHO promotion has a long history of fraud that goes back to the 1930's. CR4 does not want to be seen as promoting fraud. The FTC recently brought suit against Dennis Lee, who has already been convicted for fraud in other over-unity schemes. There are loads of other sites on the web were such things can be promoted, and where the promoters are treated as heroes. 99% of the population at large is virtually clueless re thermodynamics, combustion, the nature of science, the nature of electrolysis, reversible chemical reactions, etc. so many people swallow over-unity claims lock, stock, and barrel.

In third grade, you might have gone to a science museum where electrolysis was demonstrated. There was a big bang. What the demonstrator failed to point out was the key element that should be have been pointed out: that the energy from burning the H2 (or H2/O2 -- it does not matter) is always less that the energy that goes into the electrolysis. Water is the "ash" from burning H2, and it makes no more sense to consider water a source of energy than it does to consider ashes a source of energy. Unfortunately, a large number of people exist who believe they can "push the frontiers of science" into over-unity (in other words who believe that the energy from burning HHO can exceed the energy that goes into it) so that there would be some hope of breaking even (instead of losing efficiency). The web has given these people a forum, and for every sound science comment on electrolysis, there are 1000 unsound comments, most utterly and totally unsupportable by either theory or practice.

Suddenly, convicted frauds are heroes, and the reason Detroit has "hidden the technology" is because of "the conspiracy."* There are few facets of science that have been more thoroughly tested than the laws of thermodynamics (which in short say energy in > energy out.... always), so the people who buy into these schemes are sadly deluded.

Billions have been poured into efficient electrolysis (with the hope, among other things that we might produce H2 at nukes around the country, and then use it as fuel -- a scheme which itself is possible, but riddled with numerous problems). But the gist of that research is that there is nothing magical about H2 production, and that, just like everything else on earth, the process follows the laws of thermodynamics -- and there has not been even the slightest inkling that this might change. It is more likely that the earth will start rotating backwards.

Unfortunately, for every 55 watt-minutes your alternator produces, you get less that 55 watt minutes of energy out in HHO. Frauds claim magical properties of HHO, but there are none -- it is still simply the mixture of H2 and O2 that was used in limelights 100 years ago. (All this is easily demonstrated in a bomb calorimeter, btw -- much more easily than driving a scooter around and trying to compensate for all the variables such as weather, speed, traffic, barometric pressure, etc.) Even at much much higher levels of H2 injection than you can get in a car HHO unit, H2 injection has no beneficial effect in improving engine efficiency. This, interestingly, was demonstrated by a NASA study that HHO promoters (who never seem to actually read the study) often bring up as support for their dreams. The NASA people are not the nitwits you may think they are, and this study was done quite precisely. It is also quite easily readable so I'd recommend it. If you want numbers to examine, this is one of the best studies. (To read it, just search for the whole string of words in the title that show up in the post to which I am respond in the link above.)

In any case, your electric dyno is a good idea, although there are motorcycle chassis dynos available (I've designed and built a couple) probably not too far from you. You need a dyno that allows you to hold a load and speed continuously (in other words not an interia dyno), and you need to do a/b a/b a/b tests one immediately following the other. On a scooter, you want to be at a speed that keeps the CVT from drifting around in ratio -- on my Kymco, 40-45 mph with the throttle held wide open would be about right.

I would guess that I have made several hundred posts about HHO on this site, but have been tapering back, because I really don't have the time. But feel free to poke around, (search for HHO, Brown's gas... all the usual terms). I don't think there is anything I could write that I have not already written somewhere.

* "Detroit won't sell us the small, energy-efficient cars we want" they say. How is it that Detroit is forcing us to buy F150's against our will at rates 5 and 10 times higher that the many small cars Detroit and others make?

Hi Ken,

I wish I knew more about the x-prize while they were still accepting entries.

My use of the browns gas is to increase flame speed in the combustion chamber. The effect on my Kymco is very real and easily noticeable. Perhaps I can send you a unit for you to try on yours. I am not trying to get rich or defy the laws accepted by all. I just know that it is working and can be easily felt by anyone giving the bike a try. The run on video was the first time my girlfriend got to try the bike out. I wanted her to give an honest and objective report. She drives the bike daily for over a year now and could even tell when I changed the spark plug. Small engines like these are easy to feel small differences.

By increasing flame speed the combustion is more complete and takes advantage of otherwise unburnt fuel in my two stroke engine. The exhaust temp is lowered and slightly moist as well.

I will document all of this during next week and put some video up online for you to check out. This is something I planned on doing before the report went out. Things never work out as carefully planned though it seems.

The golf cart place also makes the motors or the prototype for the tesla. It was a 10% increase in lenght on the motor they produced for the t-zero. Great guys to talk to. They have one unit installed in a Tacoma and they claim it hits 75 mph.

Have a good weekend...

James

By increasing flame speed the combustion is more complete and takes advantage of otherwise unburnt fuel in my two stroke engine.

The NASA study (and others) show that this has little effect in four strokes even at ratios far higher than the typical HHO device produces. However, small 2 strokes emit measurable amounts of unburned fuel, unlike any car from the last couple decades, which emit no unburned fuel into the catalytic converter, in any sense that corresponds to the claims of many automotive HHO promoters. (As you may know, the actual values dither back and forth, in precisely controlled fashion, well within a percent on either side of perfectly stoichiometric. The cat has to run both reduction and oxidation reactions, which required some head scratching, largely on the part of Volvo, a few decades ago.)

My only near-term plan for the Kymco engine is to remove it from the back of the trike, to be replaced with a temporary peculiar hybrid setup. However, I am interested in your project, so I could keep it in the trike a little longer.

It certainly seems possible that there could be a small improvement in efficiency by getting the burning over more quickly in a two stroke -- although virtually all of the mix that goes initially into the pipe* is from the transfer ports -- it is not fuel for which there was insufficient burn time. (If a significant amount of fuel were still burning at transfer port opening, then you'd expect the transfer charge to burn as it mixes with the flaming cylinder contents.) But two strokes are more complicated in the combustion dynamics than four strokes, and their power stroke before exhaust port opening is far shorter, so getting things over quick is good.

It could be fun to do some testing. Georgia Tech is here, and they might be interested in helping ... and if you want credibility, there are not a lot of engineering schools that are better.

My motorcycle chassis dynos were installed in Pennsylvania (and may have fallen apart by now) but I do have electric motors that would easily load the Kymko... and it would be nice to have a dyno here anyway... and there are other dynos around...

So sure, if you send a unit, I can test it -- it may take a month or so to fit it in.

If you'd like, you can email me at the Gaia Transport site.

Regards, Ken

* to be returned milliseconds later by the expansion chamber

BTW, not to be discouraging... but why a two stroke? Many, many years ago, when there were still some 2 stroke road bikes around (Kawasaki 500 and 750, Suzuki 500, Yamaha 350 and 400, etc) we built a 350 four-cylinder Honda for the Nelson Ledges 24 hour road race. We beat every 500 cc, every 750 cc, and every Open class bike. Even weed whackers are becoming four strokes, and a really filthy for stroke is cleaner than a really clean two stroke. On the other hand, I custom-made pipes for two strokes, and did some GP racing on one, so I can see the attraction.

Prince Charles: "less than 100 months" to save the planet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/4980347/Global-warming-has-reached-a-defining-moment-Prince-Charles-warns.html

Sorry, but your off-topic ad hominem attack makes me wonder why you can't see what we, along with Prince Charles, are trying to do: Avoid Climate Change.

That's the "forest" that we're looking at. Even my students, gifted kids, are concerned, about their future.

The idea is to work together, everybody, rather than egotistic distractions to protect perceived (engineer's) turf.

Respectfully submitted,

R. Matthies

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5898045.ece

You may want to consult with a lawyer on "defamation" before you get sued by "The Dutchman" by making bare allegations without "alleged" in your statement.

I have the judge's (magistrate) decision, which was forwarded to me as a PDF and am unable to strip the text to post here. However, here's a webpage with the Dennis Lee victory over the FTC, which predates your reply, and perhaps you should have google'd before making your possibly-defamatory statements:

http://pesn.com/2009/02/13/9501523_Dennis_Lee_victorious_against_FTC/

Apparently, The Dutchman won over the FTC, contrary to your allegations.

Furthermore, you have broad-brushed generalized, like my teacher Mrs. Lehman said in high school, committing a fallacy, without acknowledging that HHO such as Hydro 4000 has been validated by TV stations in exhaustive testing.

Finally, my 11-year gifted students know why dyno testing doesn't work with Water4gas generators. I'd tell you, but the Vancouver Gadgeteers get $$$ for consulting fees for such answers.

Keep an open mind. You started this thread with a bias already, didn't you? That's not how science works, nor inventions get invented. (Two magazines picked my invention as one of the top inventions of the year. And I made a magazine cover. And CBC TV and radio .. etc ..sorry to seem to brag, to make a point.)

R. Matthies

Look more BS from guests,

I followed the link, where they claim the FTC dropped their claim: http://pesn.com/2009/02/13/9501523_Dennis_Lee_victorious_against_FTC/

There is even a link to the FTC site: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/dutchman.shtm

the FTC doesn't seem to have given up quite yet....

Are you saying that when I turn my HHO generator off and get 20 MPG and when I turn it on I get 40 MPG that I am doing something impossible? HHO generators save money by causing the engine to use less gas! You seem to be saying it takes more gas than it saves. If that were so than I would be getting fewer MPG instead of more. What am I missing? Or maybe better yet, what are you missing?

Are you saying that when I turn my HHO generator off and get 20 MPG and when I turn it on I get 40 MPG that I am doing something impossible? HHO generators save money by causing the engine to use less gas! You seem to be saying it takes more gas than it saves. If that were so than I would be getting fewer MPG instead of more. What am I missing?

The fundamentals of

Data collection

Physics

Reality

Please enlighten us with real data, not wish full[o bull] thinking, bogus videos, wizards, fairy dust...

If what you are claiming had any resemblance of truth, there would be a very large corporation founded in the 30's & the technology would have been used during WWII, the high efficiency would allow flying cars, my grandparents would have bought stock in the company my whole family would be be incredibly well off....

Is it dark in there? I've heard the hardest part of reversing a rectal cranial inversion is when the ears slide by...

My question is still the same which you did not answer: Are you saying that I should be getting fewer MPG when I turn my HHO generator on? I need to be clear on this!

Or draining your battery

How about more details as how you came to the conclusion that your mileage doubled?

How many liters of hydrogen are you producing?

What power plant is in you car?

....

I am using existing vehicle equipment (battery, alternator, etc.). I am not draining the battery. Further details irrelevant. I am only making sure that I understand your message. Are you saying that according to your sceintific understanding I should be getting lower MPG on 'computerless/computer modified' vehicles, instead of more, when nothing is done except the addition of a properly sized and designed HHO generator?

No,

I'm questioning your results & the premise that you are actually getting improved efficiency, in documenting a claim such as your's every detail is relevant!

I don't reject your claim [outright], just trying see if you've done the work & followed a logical procedure to substantiate such a boast.

When someone shows up here making wild unsupported claims, it's up to you [them] to provide the evidence.

Very basically you can never get more energy out of a system [device] than goes into that system.

Ken's layed all the math out in detail, make of it what you may.

Thank you. I now understand you to say that maybe it is possible to increase MPG with the addition of an HHO generator but that you have never tried it and never met anybody that successfully tried it. That so far, to the best of your knowledge, no corespondance at this Forum has proven to your satisfaction that it is for real. Are my assumptions correct?

No plenty of people try it & swear by their results, but hymn & haw when asked for real data not impressions...

Search the threads & judge for yourself.

Why are you here?

Do you have a technical question?

Are you here to try to convince us [CR4 members]of the benefit(s) of your scheme?

If it works prove it,

if not there are plenty of much more receptive venues.

I am new to CR4. I am not trying to convince anybody not even myself. I just needed to understand your message. Our business is research and development. We have three technicians assigned part time to our HHO project. We entered the project with the assumption that it works but that it just is not safe. Our sole fucus up until now was safety. We successfully completed the safety project. See http://www.hhogassavermpg.com/ . Now we are in the middle of confirming the technology and acquiring federal certification. I understand you to say that the technology is unproven which concerns me. Why do our informal tests indicate otherwise? And why has nobody convinced you of this? Is the idea that new? Are we being fooled? Should we drop the project and move on?

Thanks Ken,

This may just be the best version yet! funny it seems to be too much work to actually read all the posts, forcing you to reinterate over & over again

The weariness you express is the subject of this http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/34315

Roger's thread like this one decended [or was it elevated] into absurdity

News articles like this:

http://pesn.com/2009/02/13/9501523_Dennis_Lee_victorious_against_FTC/

are confusing us. Articles like this go counter to what you say. May I have your comment on this news item?

That's not what the ftc says:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/dutchman.shtm

If you would bother to actually read the whole thread, you would have seen the same link as well as your's on Post # 57

The FTC link came directly from the one you provided!

I've read the link...

The Federal Trade Commission dealt with Dutchman Enterprise accordingly since it was an issue of fraudulent business... and moreover, Dennis Lee is wanted in 8 states for fellon... getting him thru HACV is the FTC's window of opportunity.

I agree, HHO or Oxyhydrogen should not be marketed like that. The installation part of this (allow me the priviledge to call this a..) Science is not yet perfected.

Different Car Makes will need diferent approaches. Not all hydroxy electrolyzers will give a good benefit to all vehicle unless it draws energy from the wasted heat.

These Greedy Businessmen should be controlled/ contained... since they wanted to cash in early at the expense of giving a bad name to legitimate experimenters.... and I can only count a few.

There a bigger problem that needs to be solved by all of us collectively... and this type of nuisance problem or issues makes it more difficult to bridge the gap.

We need to do something about our Ozone Layer problem... This is not about saving fuel or saving money! For what good does it serve Man if he profits today - win a debate today - sell or scam someone today if he will not be able to live comfortably in this planet tomorrow... or anytime soon?

We are all riding in the same boat... we need to do something together.

You engineers are needed here. We don't need you to say why this wont work. I am speaking not in behalf of the scammers... I speak in behalf of every individual who sincerely cares for this planet. I have been doing my part for years... and I or a few of us experimenters will not be able to do it any better without engineering or technical support.

You are the professionals... we are merely the enthusiasts... I am pretty sure you can answer anything involving the math and science... let's now include the art of doing it.

I know it will be easy for you to answer "Why it wont work."....

Can I ask you "Why can it work?"

"How can we make it work?" "What Immediate Realizable Benefits can we actually get?"

I can answer the last one myself... "Clean Air! and Ozone regeneration." Please help answer the prior.

Kindest Regards,

Ah at last the promise of a question.

How can we help?

The more accurate the details the higher the quality of the answers.

You are correct no need to argue, lets identify the problems & solve em...

Hi Garthh,

Thanks for your reply... It's casting a light now at the end of the tunnel.

Very brief and concise guide! :-) and clear too!

More power!

You are correct more needs to be done to protect the balance. I read a few years back where Volvo, or Saab was coating automotive radiators with platinum to chemically clean the air that passes through the hot radiator, similar to catalytic converters. Is this still being done? If it will work, why not use the process on other heat exchangers in large industrial complexes? The cost of the additional expense would have a longer time to pay the benefits. And the heat exchanger would likely operate more hours per day for increased results. (Compared to automotive radiators.)

If the hydrogen generators are having any positive results, the first place they should show up is with the people that have the cheapest electricity... The power producing companies. Compared to automotive use, engines that are used to produce electricity run at a much narrower speed and load requirement. Surely any small improvement would return maximum benefits when the electricity is cheap and plentiful.

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2009/02/dutchman.shtm appears to have been written before the court case was decided on therefore seems to be irrelevant.

Proponents, names like Mihaylov Milen, Barzev Kiril, Georgeous Pechlivanoglou, Zhiao Yiping, and others, and institutions like MIT, University of Oldenburg, Kiril University of Bulgaria, and others, which had been hosts to several studies on HHO. Their conclusions run counter to what CR4 have been declaring. People at our R&D firm are left to choose whom to believe, and if we use credentials as basis, we will likely remain confused. What appears to differentiate the two sides are the depth and extent of analysis of the HHO effects on the engines. CR4 seems to be making declarations either from CR4 desks, based on their extensive experience, or after some hasty and unsound trials. On the other side, the HHO proponents that I mentioned above appear to have meticulously prepared and undertaken their experiments, and in a very logical manner presented their conclusions. Right now, our firm tends to lean toward the latter. On the practical side, we could also refer to achievements of successful HHO builders. We also read the article by Joe Shea in the American Reporter which seems to challenge CR4.

Our R&D firm does not wish to waste its money foolishly therefore further comments are invited from CR4.

This will help clarify your thoughts:

Produce the MIT study which shows that electrolysis units, powered by an automobile's alternator (commonly known as HHO boosters) significantly improve fuel efficiency in spark ignition engines installed in automobiles. This is great and stunning news! Finally, after all the hoaxes and fraud prosecutions, a real functioning HHO unit. (I hope you are not referring to the Arvin Mentor work -- because that would be really embarrassing for you. Nocerra's work would be even more embarrassing, because it directly supports the science that CR4 folks, and engineers and scientists everywhere, support. I don't know if you would ever regain any credibility here. Several scammers have shown up here claiming that the MIT Arvin Mentor study had something to do with HHO -- but I'm sure you are referring to something else.) I am really excited by this great news!

Once you have produced the link to that study, then I and others can comment. Otherwise, this is simply wheel spinning -- there is essentially nothing additional that can be written that I have not already written.

if we use credentials as basis, we will likely remain confused

Of course. Do not use credentials of an individual as the sole basis for your decisions. Submit your car to the EPA for testing. Then, after you have the results, come back and present them. Your car, if it gets double the mileage on HHO, is a scientific marvel worth billions. Don't delay, get it validated by the EPA, an authority recognized the world over for accurate, repeatable, fuel efficiency measurement. Car manufacturers can routinely predict, via the application of science (not pseudo science) the fuel efficiency of a new model to within one mpg of EPA cycle tests. There is no magic involved here.

There are very good reasons for the EPA having taken on fuel mileage testing, and very good reasons that a manufacturer is not allowed to advertise fake figures. Fuel mileage claims used to be the wild west. Any legitimate company promoting a concept that claims to alter fuel efficiency, should hold themselves to the same standard to which the auto manufacturers are held. Otherwise, the opportunities for fraud are simply far too obvious, and a legitimate manufacturer will do everything reasonable to avoid the appearance of fraud. Fortunately for you, the EPA already has a program in place to help legitimate manufacturers validate their claims.

Until you produce the MIT test, I can write no more -- I'm just wasting bandwidth.

Can't tell you how much I appreciate your bringing the MIT study to light. Its support for doubling mileage with HHO, in keeping with your claim, will soon lead to halving our energy consumption. Also, because such a doubling would overturn conventional science, we can expect all sorts of great things to come: cars that fly without wings, resurrection of ashes back to wood (imagine how this will hep the third world and reduce global warning), etc. The sky is no longer the limit -- all we need is imagination.

I am not, by the way, the voice of CR4.

Sending you three for the time being. I will try to find the MIT study which does not bear the names of the two people you mentioned. For the time being, please look these over. Maybe you have them already, but just in case.

• HydrogenEnhancedCombustion_3_5_2006.pdf, 1.4 MB
• hydrogen_injection.pdf, 40 KB
• Hydrogen Addition in Diesel.pdf, 97 KB

As I wrote before:

Until you produce the MIT test, I can write no more -- I'm just wasting bandwidth.

While you are hunting for that study, you might read the ones you just supplied. The first mentions the Arvin Meritor reformer, which has no relation whatsoever to HHO injection by electrolysis. The paper is ostensibly a literature review, but also editorializes, suggesting that "small amounts" of H2 injection can increase torque by 30%, a figure unsupported by actual experimental reports.

The second is not an experimental report, it is conjecture by (apparently) several authors.

The third is one I think I may have already mentioned in this thread, in which HHO is generated from a external power supply, as a convenience to avoid the use of bottled oxygen. You will note that in this report, nothing magical is ascribed to HHO, and only the energy value of the H2 is used in calculations. No one challenges the concept that H2 can be produced by electrolysis. We all know that lime lights work -- that is not the issue.

I'll wait for that MIT study. Until then, you seem to be moving backwards, rather than forwards, in credibility.

If you are interested in finding out if HHO devices work as advertised, then avoid diesel engine discussion for the time being. They cloud the issue. The claims are, typically, that HHO can dramatically increase fuel efficiency in spark ignition engines (I think you claimed something like doubled efficiency?). Once you have successfully found any legitimate study that shows that to be the case, then we can move on to diesels.

The Popular Mechanics test was a total farce consumated by a "expert without a clue"! No better than Mythbusters attempts at proving out the process without the research and work that has been accomplished by others.

Why are you here?

What is this point you trying so desperatly to make?

Prove it!

Where's the research?

Dyno

Long term mileage test? [10000 or so miles ]

Any sort of reputable 3rd party verifaction

You can't even take the time to make up some data to prove your claims. [bet that hadn't even occured to you]

Even modest improvements in either emissions or milage would have automakers, EPA, fleets, airlines...[the list is endless] beating a path to your door!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You certainly wouldn't have time to convince the infidels [CR4 members] the validity of your schemes.

You need to take a serious reality check.

1. The EPA, a government agency, has its own charter and has nothing to do with certification of any process to improve emissions or mpg efficiencies of an I.C.E.

2. The U.S. Government is not going to up front money for the purpose of developing a technology that will essentially cost them tax revenue and any money that is available comes from, guess who... The oil industry.

3. The Automotive industry has been so laxed in their responsibilities regarding mpg technology that they can no longer be trusted.

4. You want prove... pictures are worth thousands... check youtube, not only is the mythbusters video there, so is the popular mechanics video. If you have a clue about process and the non-physics of the technology you may recognize the flaws of the prior two entities attempts.

Be mindful that according to the physics of flight, bumblebee's do not exist.

Why are you here?

out of what I wrote the only thing you noticed is the EPA on my list of interested parties?

The lame rant about the automakers, is nonsense

If On board hydrogen production works, there is no end to the amount of money you can legally make.

Pictures aren't worth the electrons it takes to form them!

Where is the real data? I gave you examples!

Do you have a question?

No amount of banter will make the case.

!~

So... Our future is relegated to the likes of you and yours with no chance that you could actually engage yourself and show us the way into a new era of technological advancement without hydrocarbon fuels.

Thats not a comment.... Thats a challenge.

You have it backwards.

It's you that need to prove what you're claiming.

or at least ask a question.

Once again why are you here [cr4]?

What is the capacative resonance of two parallel titanium plates in a distilled water environment with an applied D.C. voltage of 24.0 Volts?:

How far apart are the plates & how big are they?

What is the inductance of the power supply [posting the schematic will help]?