Hydrogen systems- has anyone had success?
 

I live in Ca. Fuel has hit 4.55 gallon.

Is there anyone that has had success with the system? 3% is not success in my opinion.

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/

I installed one on my 77 300d turbo and immediately saw a 50% increase in fuel mileage. The only drawback was that tap water was not quite as effective as expensive mineral waters so the final outcome was only a 25% increase in fuel economy. Unfortunately it increased the 'hydro'carbon output in my exhaust and I failed the emissions test. I don't know how to solve this problem.

Take it off for the test... Then put it back on...

how about distilled water? have you tried that?

100% money robbing scam.

It, just like EVERY other hydrogen/HHO/browns gas "generator" out there, is a simple middle school level science project that an 8 year old can build. Its simple electrolysis. It consists of a jar, water, baking soda, and electricity. There is NO possible way it is worth even remotely close to the $97 asking price. They are making nearly 900% profit on it!

[image]http://www.auto-facts.org/images/water-4-gas-diagram.jpg[/image]

Review your laws of thermodynamics before you blow money on such major scams. There is no possible way it can significantly increase efficiency or produce enough browns gas/HHO/Hydrogen gas without consuming more fuel to generate the required electricity.

Electrolysis is very inefficient. It takes more energy to drive the alternator to make the electricity to do the electrolysis than you will get back from burning the hydrogen as fuel.

Simplified math of cycle.

Electrical generating efficiency of alternator roughly 93%
Electrolysis efficiency 70% ( a very high value obtained through actual experiments )
Diesel cycle efficiency 54% (highest ever observed in actual engine)

Now lets take 5Kw of mechanical energy and run it through the hydrogen generation cycle.

5 x .93 = 4.65 Kw of electrical energy
4.65 x .7 = 3.255 Kw of hydrogen energy

Now lets run that through the diesel cycle

3.255 x .54 = 1.758 Kw of mechanical energy.
So basically, you use 6.7hp to produce 2.36hp using a really old and obvious piece of technology.

So in the end the most you will ever get back about 35% of the energy you expended making the hydrogen.

Conclusions: Losing proposition.

Anyone that pays actual money for scams like that needs to retake their middle school science classes. That includes all forms of MPG scams- Acetone in the fuel, fuel line magnets, propane injection, intake tornadoes, special gas caps, fuel catalysts, octane boosters, cetane boosters, electric superchargers, MAF sensor resistors, O2 sensor resistors and throttle spacers.

NONE of them significantly improve MPG and ALL of them simply drain your wallet of money. Fuel only contains X amount of energy, the first law of thermodynamics says that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another. Converting energy into different forms (fuel-mechanical-electrical-electrochemical-mechanical as in the case of the hydrogen generators) results in heat production and energy losses that cannot be regained.

Energy cannot come out of nowhere, if you want to reduce consumption then you need to reduce power demand.
Get all your maintenance up to date.
Use synthetic oil.
Disable your EGR.
Advance injection timing by 2degrees.
Keep the engine at 180*F, no higher.
Use clean fuel from a clean, high traffic station.
Don't gum up the engine with vegetable oil.
Air up your tires to the proper PSI for your vehicle (NOT what it says on the tire sidewall).
Get rid of any unnecessary objects obstructing airflow (spoiler on the trunk lid for example).
Lower the vehicle weight (Remove unused seats, clean out the trunk, don't carry gallons of spare fluids, etc)
Drive 55mph instead of 75mph.
Roll down the windows instead of using the A/C.
If you have a Diesel there are several modifications/swaps that can significantly improve MPG).

I went from averaging 21.1mpg in 06 to 23.4mpg in 07 to 27mpg so far this year by following those steps, driving like a sane person, installing special injectors, installing a higher ratio differential, and improving my turbo's airflow management.

I've heard coyote urine gets the job done for peak efficiency, but since I'm on a budget I have to settle for cheap pheasant-based synthetics.

Look on You tube
 

Look on You tube. How many people are saying that it is actually working? They are not selling any items or propaganda.

Kerry- have you tried to buy minerals or? In bulk?

Is there anyone else that has done the addition? I would build my own system. I would not buy the system. I am putting an example up for evaluation.

Too many people are documenting success not to question it.

Thank you

Nick

damn. :cool: where'd you learn all that? :eek: google?:D:rolleyes:

LOL, I think P.T. Barnum had it right after-all.

BTW, this is my favorite definition of the three laws:

1. You cannot win (that is, you cannot get something for nothing, because matter and energy are conserved).

2. You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state, because there is always an increase in disorder; entropy always increases).

3. You cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is unattainable).

My post was tongue in cheek. I thought the 77 Turbo reference would give it away.

Too subtle. ;)

Well, we have heard from the people that say no way.
 

Is there anyone else who has actually done it? Other than one person.

I know many guys running vegetable oil for many years. 100,000+ miles talks.

You can throw all the theory and negative comments you wish.

It has been my experience that those to talk a lot. DO NOT DO.

Are there any other guys who have actually done it. So far, the only one reported success.

People fall for these things because they have read from authoritative sources that their engine is about 30% efficient. Then when the snake-oil salesman tells them that they are only burning 30% of their fuel, they believe it.

In reality, you burn nearly all of the fuel in the engine. The <1% that you do not burn is not enough to affect mileage noticeably.

Of course, 70% of the energy is being released as heat. If there comes about a technology which does improve mileage, you can be sure that it is because less heat is being wasted. They will indeed dwell on this fact.

Thank you to all
 

The only option is a Vespa! GRRRRRRR

No one in this universe, that "one person" was pulling your leg (see his later post).

It is not physically possible.

I can throw the theory at it, because the theory is sound.

You will never find a double-blind study of these devices. If you install a device on your car and get better fuel mileage, it is likely because you think it should work and you press just a bit lighter with your right foot.

You have to get better mileage without knowing whether the device is installed. Actually, that by itself is not blind enough. If you are curious about double-blind studies, you can find information quite easily. Human perception is just too malleable to be effective without controls.

Sorry, I'm not going to try it. I already know it won't work, so it isn't worth the effort to make the parts. And I am for sure not going to enrich the snake-oil salesmen.

indeed....


Please don't use that deadly Dihydrogen Monoxide! :eek:

You need to read this. Be aware!

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html




;)

That one person was joking with you, you won't find anyone that seriously claims it works with significant MPG gains.

Lots of people say intake Tornadoes and throttle body spacers gave a big increase in power/mpg too, that does not mean they actually do.

There are acually people on ebay selling and buying a throttle body spacer for a Powerstroke Diesel. :rolleyes:

... I have had two supposedly intelligent people ask me about the viability of this... it is sooooo hard not to laugh at these people. I mean one of them was the top dog at a government IT building... so soo sad.
it's just too bad that the thermal ceramic barriers that are sold don't improve power/efficiency enough to help. that 70% heat loss thing is too bad.
Hmmm why it the heat loss a loss of efficiency? the energy of the combustion/explosion does move the piston, why is the heat created a loss of 70% efficiency? it's the heat that expands the air to push the piston.
oh, and I had somebody ask what hydrogen DI Oxyide was... when I told them it was an unstable molecule unattainable in this physical universe they laughed at me and said no, it's water! I then pointed out to them that actually the 2 after the H stands for 2H... not 2-O... laugh laugh laugh...

Actually in a convoluted way acetone COULD potentially improve your performance in a diesel. Acetone is a pretty decent biocide, so if you had bacteria/growth problems in your fuel a little (multiple small treatments is best because you don't want to run a bunch of acetone through your fuel system all at once) acetone in the tank could help clear that right up.

Ive had people tell me about this crap. One was a teacher who heard I had a diesel car and at one point I was expirementing with the chemistry to make biodiesel. He heard and said "why dont you just do hydrogen?". I didnt really know what to say. I wanted to put a bullet in my head. I thought these people were supposed to me smart??? And he told me "well my friends daughter did it on her oldsmobile and is getting 70mpg" and I told him no, she didnt. Theres probably not enough energy in a gallon of gas to make an olds go 70 miles at 100% efficiency. I asked him though "have you ever seen the car? Seen it run? Seen it go 70 miles on one gallon of fuel? He had not. All he would say is "well if you dont think it works, why does it?".




The idea is that the hydrogen/oxygen mixture changes the burn rate of the rest of the fuel to gain efficiency. Im not buyin it. An engine takes in an immense amount of air. A few bubbles of HHO in a jar isnt ****. So whats your concentration? 1ppm? Lol. The economy increase of youtubers is the placebo effect.








Im thinking of putting this to rest. Ill take the lawnmower, make a hho generator and feed the gas into the intake of the running lawnmower. Ill replace the gas tank with a graduated container, and measure the fuel consumption. Only problem is that it wont work (even if hho did work) because its a constant throttle engine with a carb, so it just takes in fuel depending on the air flow. Damn nvm

This is sure to increase fuel economy.


http://www.tfaw.com/Profile/Back-To-The-Future-Flux-Capacitor-Replica___311677

I honestly would like to see someone on here try it out and report the results. If it works, awesome. If it fails, at least you have documented evidence against it.

I only know basics about an engine's inner workings, but my understanding about how this could work was that the system must be sacrificing energy efficiency in exchange for a more efficient spray pattern or some other effect that produces a slight boost in overall system efficiency. Any possibilities of that?

hydrogen
 

non sense hydrogen works and works well. my onan generator runs on hydrogen and runs well and produces 1.0 liter a min of browns gas. you guys need to do a lot more studying check out the hyd welder on u tube stanley myers was murdered because he had a car that would run on hydrogen alone. dont try to run it and a 1 cyl lawnmower or you will get a boom . i have a friend that runs his isusu pickup and increased his milage by 25%. get on the net and research research and dont kill yourselfs without many hrs of study safety first and i mean it. booms causes hearing loss and or fires and even death.:shocked2:

Yeah I know and have ridden and have looked at the engine in the car of a guy who runs on nothing but water.
It can be done, but it was far from some $50 internet mail-order crap. About 3 years of research, experimentation, and money went into the car. Really, he would've saved more money just buying fossil fuels for the rest of his life...

1.0 LITER of gas per minute? The engine is taking in 3+ liters of air per revolution (for a 5.9L engine for example). Thats about 5,900 liters of air per minute at 2000rpm. There is no way such an insignificant amount of gas can drastically alter the combustion of the engine.

I don't buy it at all.

The person who can make their car actually run on water will be a billionaire overnight when he/she licenses/sells the patent on it.

Fuel was $4.95 in Van Nuys, Ca. It is on it's way to $7.00
 

I have almost rebuilt my diesel with this site.

There is a lot of brainpower in this forum. Hopefully, someone can come up with some kind of help or alternative.

I was going to run heating oil. I cannot find it in Los Angeles.

I talked to a trucker tonight. He said that if Diesel fuel hits $5.50 a gallon - he simply cannot afford to haul anymore. I believe truckers are the backbone of this country. If the food stops, many people are going to go nuts.

.

Well what do you know.
I have found something that I can agree with from Forcedinduction and Craig !!

I have to say I am happy. :)

-----

Making a vehicle run on hydrogen is very easy.
Make the hydrogen gas go in the intake and it runs.
Kinda neat the first time you see it with the main fuel line removed.

-----

Making hydrogen gas is very easy.
Your car battery has been doing it all of its life.
Or
Put the positive and negative leads of a battery charger
in a bucket of water.
The bubbles you will see is hydrogen gas.
That is called electrolysis

-----

You will use more electrical energy running the battery charger in the bucket
than you will ever get out of the hydrogen that it creates.

If it were possible to get more energy out of a system than was put into it
then you would have perpetual motion and free energy.
You would have solved the worlds energy problems.
Right there in your little bucket.

-----

There is currently no way to make make hydrogen that uses less energy
than the hydrogen produced.

You could run the battery charger off of a windmill
and have some very cheep hydrogen.

But you would have been a lot better off just charging a battery.

-----

If anyone ever does figure out a way to get more energy out of a system
than was put into it. The world will hear about it in a matter of days.
And our energy problems will be over.

-----

Many very intelligent people have worked on problems such as this.
And none of them have succeeded in figuring it out.
But maybe someday ???


:jester:
Have Fun !
RichC
.

If it fails, you have documented evidence that your effort failed. You cannot prove a negative, and the salesmen will follow just enough logic and scientific method to inform you of this mote in your eye. As for the 2x4 in their own, well, let's just not mention it.

This is a VERY important facet of the scientific method that so many fail to see. I'm glad there's at least one other person on this forum who recognizes that (although I have to say I've never seen a salesperson use that argument).

There's a difference between proving a universal negative and a negative.
I just proved it is not 30 below zero in my house by looking at a thermometer. One negative proven.

Actually you've used evidence to SUPPORT your claim. You haven't proven anything.

No. If 30 below is not 60 degrees and it is 60 degrees, I falsified the claim that it is 30 below zero, thereby proving the negative that it is not 30 below zero.

Your distinction is correct. You have not proven that there is no house where the interior temperature is 30 degrees below zero.

Precisely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuhYsbT7Kq4&feature=related

This sums it up nicely.:D

Why not? Why would this cause the engine to explode. It wouldnt. If your car wont explode a lawn mower engine wont

And europe has a car that can run on dirt?

Do you know what plasma is?

Disprove the laws of thermodynamics with one of these systems, make yourself $1B and get a Nobel price in the process!:D

Ah, but heat follows certain laws and we have a solution to the heat equation. Let us stipulate that it is well above 30 degrees below zero at some point near his house. You can estimate how much colder it could possibly be in the area of the house, then prove that your estimate is valid (i.e., your extrema must be coarser than reality). From this, apply the heat equation and you can determine bounds on the extrema of the temperature inside the house.
Particularly in calculus, this appears to be the case with people learning the method but not the theory. The course materials covering the theory of calculus are usually called "Advanced Calculus" for introductory courses, and "Real Analysis" for the deep material.

There is no divide.

Very true. I stand corrected.
Time for me to get back to changing brake pads.

Sorry, I should I have clarified that the reason you have supported your claim (and NOT proved it) is largely semantic.

In science you do not say you "proved" or "disproved" something. You supported or failed to support your hypothesis.

And, you really shouldn't even have a negative hypothesis at all. More standard procedure would be to have a positive hypothesis ("It is 30 below zero in here") and then fail to reject the null when you find that it isn't 30 below zero.

I was not looking to run on Hydrogen. Just help out a bit.
 

NOT DEPEND ON IT.

If the output turns out to be 1% then it is not worth it.
If the output helps out 25% to 30% then it would be.

I am going call water4gas tomorrow and make an appointment to see a system. They are about 15 min. away from me.

The guys name is Ozzie Freedom. Has anyone heard anything about him? Other than through the water4gas site?

I am a little paranoid now. I am going to ask to see the fuel tank for possible displacement of fuel, look at the filters etc.

This is why I like this site. I am going to copy paste all the questions and take them over to him.

Thank you

Nick

Modern "efficiency enhancers" are simply taking advantage of the general publics ignorance and gullibility for quick and easy profit. Its the same way Nigerian scammers continue to successfully steal money from people despite supposedly common knowledge of their scam methods. People know they don't work but they want to BELIEVE they work.

You are confused. The discussion on that topic was that a few believed the fuel provided some lubrication for the cylinder walls, not whether or not fuel actually contacted the walls.

I agree, many people should.

Is that RATIONAL thinking by RichC?????? :eek:

That would be great if it were true but the hydrogen produced is simply burning as an additional/replacement fuel, it is not changing how efficiently the existing fuel burns.

If they want to charge you more than $15 for their middle school science project then it is a rip-off.

When octane in Diesel actually matters, please let us know. :rolleyes:

I remember reading an article about those wood powered cars. They converted some Mercedes over in Germany ins 1943ish when fuel started to become an issue. Misserable things none are left because by 1946 people got rid of them for regular cars.

They heated up the wood under pressure and burned the methane that came off it, very combersome and inefficient not to mention dangerious. It was a good idea in theory but in practice didn't work so well.

At the least
 

It will be a very interesting conversation with the guy at water4gas.

I would not buy anything from him. If I was to try it, I would make it from stuff at Home Depot.

Wow! I guess there are hard core fans for everything!

Its really an awfull way to propel a car.

Why shouldn't anyone have negative hypothesis? I wasn't looking to verify a positive hypothesis but prove a negative hypothesis by verifying it's contradiction. It's quite easy to falsify some hypotheses. All cats are white is my hypothesis. I just definitively falsified it by looking at the black cat beside me on the couch.

All knowledge is semantic to a large degree. Grunts don't get us too far.