7744 X 100 X [liters per minute HHO] divided by (amps X volts X 60) So the above example would be:
7744 X 100 X .8 divided by (12 X 13.5 X 60) = 63.74% efficient Faraday. Be advised 100% efficiency or above is overunity and never been documented. Best HHO cell documented, to the best of my knowledge, has been 85% and I believe that was on 24 volts if I'm not mistaken, unit built for heavy duty diesel use. Anything you add such as pumps or cooling fans will drop efficiency as they increase electrical consumption.
How would you relate Faraday's law of electrolysis with the numbers you used?
Is there also a specific mixture or ratio of gasoline, hydrogen and air for an internal combustion engine to work? or a better question is, how do you meter or control the amount of these 3 together knowing that there are varying pressures and temperatures?
That's apples to oranges. Hydrogen more accurately equates to ratios of gasoline or diesel to air since it is comprised of combustible gas.
Liters of hydrogen doesn't equate to liters of gas. Unless you specify that the energy density of atmospheric hydrogen, which is what you're producing, since your system is unpressurized, is 1/3000th that of gasoline.
Yup. 1 liter of gasoline = 3000 liters of hydrogen gas.
So... 2 liters a minute... 120 liters an hour... 1/9th of that is hydrogen (we don't need extra oxygen, remember?) equivalent to... about 4 milliliters of gasoline. That's to offset how much of the 1000 milliliters (or more... much more for engines above 1.6 liters) of gasoline consumed per hour in a typical automobile? That's 0.4% And if we're looking at it as an octane booster... given that Hydrogen has an effective octane of 130... then that 0.4% is equivalent to +0.5 RON. Still not effective, either as a fuel or as an octane booster.
That's why I said mass is the only factor that counts. And the amount of water consumed will point you directly towards the mass of hydrogen produced... which will point you to how much gasoline usage you can offset with the system.
*Fun facts from: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
(yeah, yeah... it's wikipedia... so sue me, I don't have a textbook handy...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by artnesmith
We've been capable of producing a lot of HHO, but not off of the engine's electrical system. Producing HHO from a separate system, a bank of batteries such as in an vehicle powered solely by an electric motor, can be producing monster amounts of HHO, even capable of powering a small 5.0 liter V8. What we have not been able to test or find good information on is whether this would last long enough to be worthwhile. The best information I can find is where certain individuals have a bank of batteries used solely for HHO production and charge these batteries from household current via of a battery charger. They get remarkable mileage using very little gasoline, but every one of them I've found has a very short daily commute. Still no good information on whether our current HHO club project to run only on battery power will get us very far. Unfortunately we are going to have to build and test that ourselves to find out.
Battery banks -> electric motors... seems to work quite fine for the EV conversion community. With effectively zero gasoline usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artnesmith
Earlier someone mentioned the "placebo effect" on calculating mileage. I meant to address that at the time, but was distracted and forgot until now. This is a potential problem anytime someone is testing any sort of mileage device and I've often wondered if I have fallen victim to the placebo effect on testing these HHO units. For example, if you go to the consumer advocacy sites for the different states such as Texas or California you'll notice the parameters used to test claims of improved mileage for different types of mileage enhancing products sold on the market. Rarely do they use a dynomometer due to the slight or non existent power improvements some devices claim such as the fuel line magnets. They instead take a test group of cars and let the drivers go about their daily commute and get a baseline. Then they add the device to be tested to half of the cars, and a fake device on the other half. None of the drivers are aware of whether their car has the legitimate device or the fake. They compare mileage increases to determine if the group with the actual device got better mileage than the group without. If you read the information you'll notice the cars without the device also get better mileage! That has to be the placebo effect causing drivers to assume they have the device installed and somehow drive differently.
Along these same lines, another friend came up with some sort of lotion to grow hair for thinning hairlines. He had proof it actually worked. I told him, "Are you sure?" Then I showed him the first clinical trials for Minoxidil. Believe it or not, 11-33% of men on the placebo showed "moderate to strong hair growth." The difference between the placebo and group actually using Minoxidil was only 10%. So you see, even if something doesn't work, it may actually work depending on how it's used. The placebo effect is hard to deny.
Again... a dynamometer can accurately measure steady state fuel economy. This is how the EPA measures fuel economy. This is how European countries measure fuel economy. As someone who's intimately familiar with dynos, I wish you'd stop making the assumption that measuring fuel efficiency on the dyno is impossible, because it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artnesmith
Your hostility toward HHO is well documented. Nitrous oxide is an interesting comparison. This equates to pure oxygen and increases the ability to increase fuel delivery much the same as a turbo or supercharger would do.
Nitrous oxide's effect is not just extra oxygen... otherwise you'd inject oxygen alone. The decomposition of N2O into nitrogen and oxygen absorbs heat energy and cools down the air charge, providing a denser air-fuel mixture and better efficiency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by artnesmith
Pressure? You see most guys using PVC to encapsulate the HHO units with zero pressure or even using vacuum to pull in the gas. However, if you were to seal a unit in stainless steel, as many have done, without a pressure relief valve the unit would certainly explode if electrolysis continued. The volume of HHO would increase and increase pressure until the rupture point was reached. Most don't want to spend the money on this, but our club has procured a pressure switch that will cut power to the relay at 65 PSI to fabricate a unit that shuts down at pressure. Using a propane/gasoline valve on many engines this will allow the burst of HHO necessary for use in stop and go traffic. Just depends on how you do it.
I have a unit on my work bench right now that belongs to a club member that cannot begin to operate properly below 10 amps and should be operated at 20-150 amps for best efficiency. This unit produces .8 liter to 5 liters per minute in that amp range and should suffice for a starting point to do some engine idling in the absence of gasoline to study battery life under different loads. Electric cars do draw a lot of amperage using a lot of batteries. Once batteries are dead, you're stuck until batteries are charged or vehicle is towed. These cars usually don't go farther than 40 miles at 40 miles per hour. I'm betting we can do better with HHO and when batteries are run down we can actually get home on gasoline.
Dry Cells operate at great efficiency, but tend to leak. A dry cell enclosed in a container submerged in water is called a "submerged dry cell" and can develop great pressure depending on the encapsulating material. PVC probably won't hold more pressure than 80 PSI in the 4 inch ID pipe size. Anything under pressure with a combustible gas and pure oxygen can be very dangerous though.
The question is still how long does it take to produce a meaningful amount of gas. And meaningful, as in, you have enough hydrogen, by mass, to run the car for a certain amount of time.
__________________
Automotive Reviews and Features [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Originally Posted by artnesmith Your hostility toward HHO is well documented. Nitrous oxide is an interesting comparison. This equates to pure oxygen and increases the ability to increase fuel delivery much the same as a turbo or supercharger would do.
Once again the lack of knowing how internal combustion works is stunning. I'm not hostile towards HHO if hostility is asking for proof that it works than I'm a god of war. So far you cannot do such a simple thing. All you have is theory even though it's been proven not to do as claimed.
Now back on Nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide has this effect because it has a higher percentage of oxygen content than does the air in the atmosphere. Nitrous has 36% oxygen by weight and the atmosphere has 23%. Additionally, nitrous oxide is 50% more dense than air at the same pressure. Thus, a cubic foot of nitrous oxide contains 2.3 times as much oxygen as a cubic foot of air. Just do a bit of math in your head and you can see if we substitute some nitrous oxide for some of the air going into an engine than add the appropriate amount of additional fuel, the engine is going to put out more power. It dramatically increase the dynamic cylinder pressure in the engine.
But as stated 2 liters per minute of nitrous oxide would yield as little effect as your 2 liters of HHO system produced gas which is not even pure hydrogen.
Why is this so hard to accept to you guys.
Also Please learn how a dyno works for measuring fuel economy. It is beyond amazing that a whole cult claiming to be dedicated to increase fuel economy but don't even know how to get proper testing done to show the results of there hard work. What other area of automoive research does anyone know that is this blaitantly ignorant of how to do proper test procedures to provide results.
OH wait a minute I forgot because it's been proven by these very procedures not to work. That's why the FTC lawsuits and prision time for some of the bigest of the scammers which you and others have tried to use as credible referance sources.
Here's how real fuel economy is checked by the EPA.
(1) Degree of improvement in fuel economy
(2) Effect on exhaust emissions
(3) Vehicle applicability
(b) The Administrator may determine that, in certain cases, tests using engine dynamometers are adequate for determining the effect of a device. Examples of such cases are given below.
(1) Long-term effects. In some cases, it may be necessary for the engine to operate for several thousand miles before the effectiveness can be adequately measured. In such cases an engine dynamometer will permit a less expensive and better controlled durability and economy test than one in which a vehicle must be driven on a durability route and then tested on a chassis dynamometer or test track.
(2) Durability requirements. Aspects of engine durability can be efficiently determined using specialized engine testing rather than through durability mileage accumulation in a vehicle. A number of standard engine tests are presently used which can be incorporated into this requirement.
(c) When in the judgment of the Administrator a device cannot satisfactorily be evaluated using either dynamometer or track versions of the City Fuel Economy Test and the Highway Fuel Economy Test, the Administrator will select or design other procedures.
The Administrator will choose a test procedure or procedures from various engine dynamometer durability test procedures used by research organizations in government, the oil industry, engine manufacturing companies, and independent laboratories. Driveability tests.
Driveability assessment (at normal ambient temperatures) of the baseline configuration, of the adjusted configuration (if required by the Administrator), and of the fully retrofitted configuration may be conducted at zero device-miles for all vehicles included in the durability fleet, and at approximately zero device-miles at low ambient temperatures (0 °F–20 °F). Driveability evaluation procedures will be provided by the Administrator when necessary. Performance tests.
The effect of a device on a vehicle's performance will be determined by performing wide-open-throttle 0 to 60 mph acceleration tests (at normal ambient temperatures) on the baseline vehicle configuration, on the adjusted configuration (if required), and on the fully retrofitted configuration. Tests will be conducted on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track, with appropriate speed-time measuring equipment, on as many vehicles as determined to be necessary.
Track test procedures.
(a) Cases may arise where it will be necessary to evaluate the fuel economy effects of a retrofit device on a test track, because the effect of the device cannot be adequately tested using the chassis dynamometer procedures. (An obvious example is a device that changes the aerodynamic drag of the test vehicle.) In such cases, testing will be performed on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track for such dimensions that the speeds required by the city and highway fuel economy tests may be safely achieved.
(1) Because aerodynamic drag is not a linear function of velocity, it will be necessary to limit testing to times when the wind velocity is less than 5 mph, with gusts less than 10 mph.
(2) Testing will also be limited to ambient temperatures between 60° and 90 °F, and to times when the ambient temperature remains reasonably constant during individual tests. Temperature differences between tests of baseline and retrofit configurations will also be minimized.
(3) Exhaust emissions will not be measured during track testing.
(4) Fuel economy of a vehicle running on a track will be measured using either a volumetric or gravimetric procedure approved by the Administrator.
(5) Vehicle speed and distance will be measured with a “fifth wheel” type of device. Suitable apparatus will be used to generate a permanent record (strip chart recorder, etc.) of the vehicle speed versus time.
(b) City fuel economy test. Although essentially the same procedures will be used for track testing as for dynamometer testing, some modifications will be necessary to insure safe operation of the test vehicle and to adjust to the requirements of track testing.
(1) An assistant to the driver will be necessary to steer the vehicle, so that the driver will not be distracted from following the speed-time schedules used in the Federal test procedure.
(2) The test vehicle will be preconditioned within the same time constraints given in §610.43(a)(1)(ii). Preconditioning may take place either on the track or on a dynamometer. The 12-hour soak after preconditioning will take place in an area where the ambient temperature will remain within the 60° to 90 °F range, indoors, if necessary.
(3) The vehicle will be transported to the test track without being started. If the distance from soak area to track is no greater than one-quarter mile, then the vehicle may be pushed or towed to the track. Otherwise the vehicle must be transported by truck or trailer.
(4) Fuel economy will be determined by either a gravimetric or volumetric method.
(c) Highway fuel economy test. The highway test will follow the city fuel economy test in the same manner as in dynamometer tests (§610.43(b)). Fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.
(d) Steady state tests. Steady state tests on the track will be run in the same manner as on the dynamometer except that fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.
Like I said it's almost laughable HHO claims are still around even though they have been subjected to these test to prove it had no effect. I'm sure none of you even knew how the testing is even done.
By the way this testing is not even expensive folks, The dyno fuel economy testing is less than 1000USD but these companies are spending Tens of Thousands of USD in marketing but some how can't afford a simple test to provide proof.
How would you relate Faraday's law of electrolysis with the numbers you used?
Is there also a specific mixture or ratio of gasoline, hydrogen and air for an internal combustion engine to work? or a better question is, how do you meter or control the amount of these 3 together knowing that there are varying pressures and temperatures?
For more reference on Faraday's Law see this link: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Most information on Michael Faraday's Law tend to revolve around his laws of induction for magnetism which can be confusing for those trying to understand the big picture. Basically, going by Faraday's Law, you just cannot get out more than you put in something. Many have claimed "overunity" or getting out more than they put in, but nothing yet documented. There are some electromagnetic coils being tested now for validity that tend to show overunity, but nothing verified at this time. According to Faraday you cannot use one BTU of gasoline to generate more than one BTU of production. There would always be a loss unless you are using geothermal, nuclear or gravity for example.
So Faraday's Law could apply to electric cars, for just one example, that even if they turn generators while driving, the generators will not produce as much power as is consumed by the electric motors meaning eventually the batteries will run down. In our case, the gasoline used to generator one watt is more than the energy value of the hydrogen we produce.
If you take our formula, you'll notice there are values already established to evaluate the amount of energy necessary to produce one watt. Then this is figured in to the value in BTUs of hydrogen we produce. If we break even, or unity, then we get 100% efficiency. Some people on the Internet show exaggerated figures on HHO production and amps. When you figure this up according to Faraday's Law you have more than 100% efficiency or overunity. If you have overunity, then this means you gain or run ahead the more you use or produce. If so, then why in the world would you ever need a gas tank? Clearly they are exaggerating, dishonest or just unable to measure volumes and amps properly.
Our formula 7744 X 100 X HHO produced in one minute divided by (Watts X 60 seconds) is taking the energy necessary to make the hydrogen (Watts X test period in seconds) and dividing that into the value of the HHO produced. So basically we are taking a standard measure of energy necessary to produce electricity compared to the energy value of the hydrogen produced in BTUs of energy. Faraday's Law can be applied to many other technologies including electric motors and hydrogen fuel cells that turn hydrogen into electricity. You just need to have the energy value of what you make compared to the energy value of what was consumed to make that volume.
The reason most formulas on the Internet take the BTU value of hydrogen by weight, then transfered to volume at sea level is because the volume of a gas at sea level will be less than the same weight of that gas at much higher altitude. I could take a cell making 1 liter per minute in Manila (sea level) and take it to Mexico City (more than 2 kilometers above sea level) and the same volume of hydrogen will occupy more space making it appear to be larger. So guys testing their HHO generators at high altitude may appear to be more efficient than the rest of us, but actually just making the same amount of gas in mass/weight even if it is more in volume.
This is why when you over run a HHO generator your mileage goes down. If run at lower amps, this depends on the engine size and whether diesel of gasoline fueled, you tend to be within the "flywheel effect" of that engine. This is the area where the engine's momentum carries it, to a point. If you pass this area mileage will drop as you must burn more fuel to push the extra amperage. More HHO does not equate to better mileage if amps run away beyond the engine's ability to carry those amps. I don't remember seeing this on the Internet, but it's a factor you will run into if you tinker around with different strengths of electrolyte, especially on small engines.
Nitrous oxide's effect is not just extra oxygen... otherwise you'd inject oxygen alone. The decomposition of N2O into nitrogen and oxygen absorbs heat energy and cools down the air charge, providing a denser air-fuel mixture and better efficiency.
Actually, the molecular compound for nitrous oxide is very simple, and it is not fuel. If you inject pure oxygen into an engine, this has already been addressed throughout the Internet, you will not get a slow burn, but a piston shattering explosion. This is the problem I am concerned with at the moment with the HHO, in that we need to meter in air, which is mostly nitrogen to prevent the horrible banging that occurs when you put pure HHO in an engine without sufficient inert gases such as nitrogen or carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide brings its own nitrogen (nitrous) and accomplishes this very well. This is why so many racers worry about improper fuel delivery at full throttle with nitrous oxide as the oxygen will create a lean condition without the proper fuel mixture increase. Nitrous packs in more dense air, like the boost from a turbo or supercharger, so extra fuel can be added for more power.
Whether a battery connected to an electric motor is more efficient than the same battery being used for electrolysis to make HHO to be burned by an internal combustion engine remains to be seen. There is no information on this that I can find, so I plan to actually do it and time battery drain at different engine speeds. I have no idea how well this will work. Not going to be easy. Today I blew a 40 amp fuse and burned up a pulser just trying to find out how long I could run something like this. I keep forgetting how many amps electric cars use, and need to up the wiring to handle it before I continue.
Now back on Nitrous oxide. [font=Verdana][size=2]Nitrous oxide has this effect because it has a higher percentage of oxygen content than does the air in the atmosphere. Nitrous has 36% oxygen by weight and the atmosphere has 23%.
At sea level the oxygen content is 20.95%. It gets thinner as you go up in altitude. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
At sea level the oxygen content is 20.95%. It gets thinner as you go up in altitude. [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I would like to point out that wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Just posting the article's contents:
Quote:
Hydrogen Gadgets at SEMA: Cars Still Can't Run on Water
By Mike Allen
Published on: November 6, 2009
Since I did my last story debunking hydrogen-on-demand, documenting an NBC Dateline story I participated in, my e-mail has been relatively free of the hydrogen-gadget feeding frenzy. Within a few weeks of that story last spring, the number of people vilifying me and accusing me of being in the employ of Big Oil was remarkably high.
Now, maybe because the price of gasoline has come down, people aren't so desperate. And as everyone is trying to weather the economic storm, it seems there's no time or energy left over to try to circumvent the laws of physics.
The SEMA show this year is also blissfully short on bogus gas-saving gadgets. Few seem to be peddling fuel-line magnets, intake-tract vortex generators, vapor injectors or other stuff that doesn't work. It's actually a refreshing change. Unfortunately, there are still some throwbacks selling additives and chemicals that claim improved fuel economy. Sigh. P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute.
And, of course, there are still die-hard hydrogen-on-demand holdouts out there, claiming dramatic improvements in fuel economy by burning water in your car. On the floor I even found a couple of vendors selling systems. Not just backyard systems, either. I'm talking engineered systems with remote water reservoirs and electronic controllers.
I heard one pitchman trot out the same old blarney: "Your engine only burns 80 percent of the gasoline you're paying for. Our hydrogen-enrichment device will let you burn 100 percent!" Rubbish. The level of unburned and partially burned hydrocarbons in the exhaust stream is only a few hundred parts per million. The percentage of carbon monoxide is less than 1 percent, all measured before the catalytic converter, which cleans up the rest. There's a long way from a few hundred parts per million—or even from 1 percent—to 20 percent. Even if injecting hydrogen could make the combustion event perfect, there still couldn't be a 20 percent improvement.
I looked at one system from MPE Performance that sells for $1700, uninstalled. (MPE makes money selling custom exhaust systems.) It's really intended for big-rig truckers, so it produces a lot of HHO—they claim 3 to 4 liters of product per minute. To make that much gas, the system sucks up 60 amps of 12-volt electricity. That's more than half the alternator's output on most vehicles. A spokesman for MPE claimed that rarely would that much current be a problem. Let's see: 60 amps at a nominal 14 volts when the engine is running is 840 watts, more than a horsepower of extra load on the engine. In spite of claims, that's extra fuel consumed: MPE's staff asserted that the alternator "produces all that electricity anyway, so we're just using it instead of wasting it." Doesn't work that way, folks.
MPE plans to improve the performance of its next-generation hydrogen generator by using a DC-to-DC converter to up the voltage to 24 or 48 volts. Wrong again. One of the first things I learned in fooling around with HHO devices is that it takes only a couple of volts to disassociate the hydrogen from the oxygen in water. Using any more than 3 volts across an individual electrolysis cell just heats up the water more; it won't produce any more hydrogen. A few minutes into a conversation with MPE reinforced what I've learned in years of debunking these devices: The people making and pitching them don't really understand the physics behind their claims. Or if they do, they hope their customers don't.
We did find one decent gas-saver at the show, the T-Max transmission thermostat. Simple, really. It bypasses the transmission cooler in the radiator until the transmission reaches normal operating temperature. Hotter automatic transmission fluid (ATF) is less viscous than cold ATF, and has less hydrostatic drag. In the kind of urban driving cycle most people have, 30 minutes or so of stop-and-go driving followed by a cool-down, the reduced drag means reduced fuel consumption, and they have wind tunnel and dynamometer data to back up their claims. The T-Max received a PM Editor's Choice award.
Still, most gas savers I've investigated don't come with credible test results, just anecdotal testimonials. Caveat emptor, readers!
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Good article. Like I've been saying, most of the guys selling these are not credible. Does anyone here on this thread actually sell these?
Another good point not touched upon in this article, is the high cost to purchase of some devices. If a car saves 300 dollars in fuel, just for an example, but spends 1,500 dollars, hardly worth the effort.
I would like to point out that wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.
Aside from posts or comments from users, none of the content can be changed except by the webmaster unless someone hacks the site, same as any website. However, I was only using this to point out the oxygen content of the air which remains a constant from other sources. Rounding up to 21% oxygen is a common practice.
Aside from posts or comments from users, none of the content can be changed except by the webmaster unless someone hacks the site, same as any website. However, I was only using this to point out the oxygen content of the air which remains a constant from other sources. Rounding up to 21% oxygen is a common practice.
I'm sorry but I beg to differ because I just modified the wiki entry you used as a basis of your oxygen percentage. No hacking needed.
As I mentioned earlier, wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.
Good article. Like I've been saying, most of the guys selling these are not credible. Does anyone here on this thread actually sell these?
Another good point not touched upon in this article, is the high cost to purchase of some devices. If a car saves 300 dollars in fuel, just for an example, but spends 1,500 dollars, hardly worth the effort.
Can you name one single one that is? It's already been proven not to work as advertised so how can there be any credible people that sell , build or insist on blogging none stop about it?
I know for a fact that these guys can't answer any hard questions or provide any proof, My Business partner attended SEMA this year and put it too just one of these guys and he just angry and walked away because he got embarrassed in front of a crowd. Could not provide a single piece of proof the kits worked as he stated.
All these are pure snake oil.
Please provide proof of one that is not. What other project do people work on that has been proven not to work?
I'm sorry but I beg to differ because I just modified the wiki entry you used as a basis of your oxygen percentage. No hacking needed.
As I mentioned earlier, wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.
Why did you post this? Clearly it has not been modified nor do you have permission (password-login-etc.) to make these changes: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Regardless of whether you agree with the information on this particular page or anything I post in the HHO bashing thread, this information is a constant you find in other sources such as in your local library. I was pointing out inaccurate information. You were being intentionally deceptive. I wonder why?
Bashing thread, LMAO, you have made the choice to be childess and not be able to answer any hard questions.
Can you name one legitimate company that sells these kits. (YES or NO)
Can you show any legitimate test that show these systems save any fuel (YES or NO)
Can you show proof the EPA testing procedures that have debunked all HHO claims of fuel saving are wrong (YES or NO) I even provided you with the testing procedures which you choice to ignore just because I post them.
You can answer them so you just act like the question is not ask yes you (artnesmith) You have provided nothing but I play with voltage and amps and make bubble to this entire thread. Just like every other HHO thread.
Can you justify why anyone should be looking into this a a means to save fuel when you cannot even show it works, and EPA testing has been done showing it does not.
Is not the whole point of the thread to show that the topic actually works.
Lets remind you artesmith what the orignial thread was about from the first post.
Quote:
Hi guys,
I know there was a thread regarding this but it has been closed down.
While I was surfing the net, I came accross this thing:
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
I'd like to ask you guys to give an opinion about what they offer. Is it real? Is it a scam?
We have proven the case that it's a scam?
YES WE HAVE!
Have you provide one piece of proof other wise?
NO!
You choose to ignore all fact about the impident amount of gas your kits produce with how much air and fuel a vehicle actually uses.
When confronted by facts that you now are right you choice to just ignore them.
Point in fact and I will use someone elses and not just mine.
You got OWNED on all these facts and you have no answer.
Quote:
Liters of hydrogen doesn't equate to liters of gas. Unless you specify that the energy density of atmospheric hydrogen, which is what you're producing, since your system is unpressurized, is 1/3000th that of gasoline.
Yup. 1 liter of gasoline = 3000 liters of hydrogen gas.
So... 2 liters a minute... 120 liters an hour... 1/9th of that is hydrogen (we don't need extra oxygen, remember?) equivalent to... about 4 milliliters of gasoline. That's to offset how much of the 1000 milliliters (or more... much more for engines above 1.6 liters) of gasoline consumed per hour in a typical automobile? That's 0.4% And if we're looking at it as an octane booster... given that Hydrogen has an effective octane of 130... then that 0.4% is equivalent to +0.5 RON. Still not effective, either as a fuel or as an octane booster.
That's why I said mass is the only factor that counts. And the amount of water consumed will point you directly towards the mass of hydrogen produced... which will point you to how much gasoline usage you can offset with the system.
Prove this wrong!!!
Here is your totaly ignorant statement about testing of fuel saving devices.
Quote:
Rarely do they use a dynomometer due to the slight or non existent power improvements some devices claim such as the fuel line magnets. They instead take a test group of cars and let the drivers go about their daily commute and get a baseline. Then they add the device to be tested to half of the cars, and a fake device on the other half. None of the drivers are aware of whether their car has the legitimate device or the fake. They compare mileage increases to determine if the group with the actual device got better mileage than the group without. If you read the information you'll notice the cars without the device also get better mileage! That has to be the placebo effect causing drivers to assume they have the device installed and somehow drive differently.
Hmmm WRONG!
I posted exactly how they are tested and you choose to just ignore it. I'll put it again so you can see just how totally wrong you are. Feel free to look up the information yourself which is what you should have done to begin with.
Please tell us the EPA is doing it wrong!!!
Quote:
Here's how real fuel economy is checked by the EPA.
(1) Degree of improvement in fuel economy
(2) Effect on exhaust emissions
(3) Vehicle applicability
(b) The Administrator may determine that, in certain cases, tests using engine dynamometers are adequate for determining the effect of a device. Examples of such cases are given below.
(1) Long-term effects. In some cases, it may be necessary for the engine to operate for several thousand miles before the effectiveness can be adequately measured. In such cases an engine dynamometer will permit a less expensive and better controlled durability and economy test than one in which a vehicle must be driven on a durability route and then tested on a chassis dynamometer or test track.
(2) Durability requirements. Aspects of engine durability can be efficiently determined using specialized engine testing rather than through durability mileage accumulation in a vehicle. A number of standard engine tests are presently used which can be incorporated into this requirement.
(c) When in the judgment of the Administrator a device cannot satisfactorily be evaluated using either dynamometer or track versions of the City Fuel Economy Test and the Highway Fuel Economy Test, the Administrator will select or design other procedures.
The Administrator will choose a test procedure or procedures from various engine dynamometer durability test procedures used by research organizations in government, the oil industry, engine manufacturing companies, and independent laboratories. Driveability tests.
Driveability assessment (at normal ambient temperatures) of the baseline configuration, of the adjusted configuration (if required by the Administrator), and of the fully retrofitted configuration may be conducted at zero device-miles for all vehicles included in the durability fleet, and at approximately zero device-miles at low ambient temperatures (0 °F–20 °F). Driveability evaluation procedures will be provided by the Administrator when necessary. Performance tests.
The effect of a device on a vehicle's performance will be determined by performing wide-open-throttle 0 to 60 mph acceleration tests (at normal ambient temperatures) on the baseline vehicle configuration, on the adjusted configuration (if required), and on the fully retrofitted configuration. Tests will be conducted on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track, with appropriate speed-time measuring equipment, on as many vehicles as determined to be necessary.
Track test procedures.
(a) Cases may arise where it will be necessary to evaluate the fuel economy effects of a retrofit device on a test track, because the effect of the device cannot be adequately tested using the chassis dynamometer procedures. (An obvious example is a device that changes the aerodynamic drag of the test vehicle.) In such cases, testing will be performed on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track for such dimensions that the speeds required by the city and highway fuel economy tests may be safely achieved.
(1) Because aerodynamic drag is not a linear function of velocity, it will be necessary to limit testing to times when the wind velocity is less than 5 mph, with gusts less than 10 mph.
(2) Testing will also be limited to ambient temperatures between 60° and 90 °F, and to times when the ambient temperature remains reasonably constant during individual tests. Temperature differences between tests of baseline and retrofit configurations will also be minimized.
(3) Exhaust emissions will not be measured during track testing.
(4) Fuel economy of a vehicle running on a track will be measured using either a volumetric or gravimetric procedure approved by the Administrator.
(5) Vehicle speed and distance will be measured with a “fifth wheel” type of device. Suitable apparatus will be used to generate a permanent record (strip chart recorder, etc.) of the vehicle speed versus time.
(b) City fuel economy test. Although essentially the same procedures will be used for track testing as for dynamometer testing, some modifications will be necessary to insure safe operation of the test vehicle and to adjust to the requirements of track testing.
(1) An assistant to the driver will be necessary to steer the vehicle, so that the driver will not be distracted from following the speed-time schedules used in the Federal test procedure.
(2) The test vehicle will be preconditioned within the same time constraints given in §610.43(a)(1)(ii). Preconditioning may take place either on the track or on a dynamometer. The 12-hour soak after preconditioning will take place in an area where the ambient temperature will remain within the 60° to 90 °F range, indoors, if necessary.
(3) The vehicle will be transported to the test track without being started. If the distance from soak area to track is no greater than one-quarter mile, then the vehicle may be pushed or towed to the track. Otherwise the vehicle must be transported by truck or trailer.
(4) Fuel economy will be determined by either a gravimetric or volumetric method.
(c) Highway fuel economy test. The highway test will follow the city fuel economy test in the same manner as in dynamometer tests (§610.43(b)). Fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.
(d) Steady state tests. Steady state tests on the track will be run in the same manner as on the dynamometer except that fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.
I'm pretty sure your also about to get OWNED again by Ghosthunter for you little comment on him being dishonest.
Re: Run your Car on Water!
That's why the FTC lawsuits and prision time for some of the bigest of the scammers which you and others have tried to use as credible referance sources. 
Linear Mode
