h2o hybrid

[mwiener2]

I just realized something about Water4Fuel....

 

 

Their Brown's Gas, HHO

 

 

IT"S WATER VAPOR!!! HHO = H2O

 

 

 

 

edit: also realized something else, when you burn water vapor in combustion chaper, the high heat and pressure do break some of the Hydrogen/Oxygen bonds... Just like NO2 releases the Oxygen. But in H2O, not enough hydrogen is released to make a big difference.

[andrew.anderson]

[AKLGT]

ok, i've had this on my car since 05 when i bought my car, not just since the prices went up, i could give a sh*t about the gas prices i make enough money a year not to bitch about them after all people bitch bitch bitch and bitching does nothing, why dont all of you who doubt it, actually try this... and to all who say "DUH THEN UMMMMM WHY DOESNT ALL THE CART MANUFACTURERS PUT THIS IN THERE CAR" WELL LETS SEE HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM THEY CANT MAKE MONEY ON WATER..... and they have been using this in europe for the last 10 years and they have been using alcohol injection in brazil for the last 20 no gas what so ever.......and i will post pictures and even my car displaying 40+mpg on the cobb ap and my in dash mpg av..... Us as americans are brainwashed by marketing and we still like our forefather said are a big experiment... we are quick to say sh*t and realllllllly lazy not to do sh*t...... even if i was to hook this up to my alternator there would be no loss of horsepower or any kind of power other then electricity.... people are saying your going to have loss, thats like saying everytime you plug in your radar detector you loose horsepower, because i could make an electrolyzer that runs off the same wires..... im not going to argue with all that oppose because my fingers are getting tired , when i have time i will post some pics...

 

and to all the people who oppose think outside the box, there is fresher air outside

**coxx people are not holding back in profits, you try creating an alternative fuel and pushing through opec.... they do own this world...... look what they did to ethanol.

thank you. I was hoping you would chime in again.

 

I do believe this will work, so I'm looking forward to trying this out on the LGT.

[BigBad]

subscribed.

[mwiener2]

even if i was to hook this up to my alternator there would be no loss of horsepower or any kind of power other then electricity.... people are saying your going to have loss, thats like saying everytime you plug in your radar detector you loose horsepower, because i could make an electrolyzer that runs off the same wires.....

 

 

ummm, you do lose HP everytime you hook up something electrical. Where do you think that electricity comes from?

 

let's say your radar detector uses 35w of electricity.... 35 watts = 0.0469357731 horsepower

[leggtnut]

I think people doubt it becuase no one has shown a lick of proof. Just post the proof and let people see it. You can't expect everyone to believe in something that seems too good to be true. Why isn't everyone on car forums talking about this? No one mentioned it on here for the last 3 years I've been on so you have to understand people are skeptical.

 

Rather than attack those who don't believe it, I think we need to just see proof that it's cost effective ($30??? We've been told $2k before. ) and it works.

 

EDIT: Oh, and those who appear to be knowledgable in thermodynamics say it goes against the laws of physics. So, how do we explain this? Just curious here and trying moderate.

 

My hypothsis on this would be that they are still thinking "INSIDE" the box. What this is most likely doing is making the gas to a more compleat burn state. And the hydrogen also adds a little more to the burn. So the car needs less gas per burn because it is using it more efficently and since the hydrogen will act as fuel as well, the car will need less of it.

 

That is just a hypothsis, so don't take my word on it. It has been ~15years since high school chemestry.

[03LegacyWgn]

 

EDIT: Oh, and those who appear to be knowledgable in thermodynamics say it goes against the laws of physics. So, how do we explain this? Just curious here and trying moderate.

 

 

they once said the earth was flat didn't they? and when were these said laws of physics made? (im no scientist either just asking)

[mwiener2]

^^ No No NOOO

 

adding water vapor does make it burn any better. Making scratchs to the top of the cylinder head like the guy in india does makes it burn better.

 

 

http://www.auto-facts.org/water4gas-scam.html

 

this guy trys to revea the scam, then gets sucked into it himself... but as he breaks down how it works (and trys to prove that it does) he actually points out all the ways it DOESN'T work.

[mwiener2]

they once said the earth was flat didn't they? and when were these said laws of physics made? (im no scientist either just asking)

 

 

the laws of physics have been put together since man has been able to record science to paper. They are LAWS becasue no one has yet been able to find a way to break them.

 

All this new science with particle accelerators is try and find ways AROUND the laws of physics. In alot of their experiments, they do find that the laws don't apply, but they are on sub-atomic scale. When you start scaling it up, as soon as you get bigger than sub-atomic, the rules all apply again.

[03LegacyWgn]

the laws of physics have been put together since man has been able to record science to paper. They are LAWS becasue no one has yet been able to find a way to break them.

 

All this new science with particle accelerators is try and find ways AROUND the laws of physics. In alot of their experiments, they do find that the laws don't apply, but they are on sub-atomic scale. When you start scaling it up, as soon as you get bigger than sub-atomic, the rules all apply again.

 

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

[mwiener2]

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1769/68

[AKLGT]

I think people doubt it becuase no one has shown a lick of proof. Just post the proof and let people see it. You can't expect everyone to believe in something that seems too good to be true. Why isn't everyone on car forums talking about this? No one mentioned it on here for the last 3 years I've been on so you have to understand people are skeptical.

 

Rather than attack those who don't believe it, I think we need to just see proof that it's cost effective ($30??? We've been told $2k before. ) and it works.

 

EDIT: Oh, and those who appear to be knowledgable in thermodynamics say it goes against the laws of physics. So, how do we explain this? Just curious here and trying moderate.

no, the way I see it, it's quite the opposite. People seem to think I must be some idiot because I'm willing to spend the money to test this.

 

I'm actually looking forward to this experiment, even if it does cost me $1200 to do it. If it works, than I will be the one enjoying better fuel economy and making up my investment in 6-8 months. If not, well, then I guess I just wasted $1200. I'm willing to put it to the test and see what it really does. Then we can all see some "proof" because I will have documented everything and you will all see if this is fact or fiction. Done.

 

As for current proof, I am working on it. I have forwarded this thread to my friend who will be getting the information requested together.

[coxx]

**coxx people are not holding back in profits, you try creating an alternative fuel and pushing through opec.... they do own this world...... look what they did to ethanol.

that's not how it works guy. OPEC has nothing to do with alternative fuels in the US. I'm quite knowledgeable on this subject

 

Burden of proof is on you. No further debate is necessary.

[AKLGT]

I think my realization that Brown's Gas (HHO) is really just water(H2O) is pretty much all the proof you need... along with the links I provided and the multiple explanations of the laws of physics from myself and others.

 

Spend the $$ on converting to E85. You won't get better mpg, but you'll pay less at the pump and it will be the best thing you could do for tracking the car.

It's not available here or I'd probably be doing it already.

 

However, I'm more or less interested in this whole MYTHBUSTERS thing, so hell! It'll be our own project!

 

and why doesn't steam produce power? That is what Brown's Gas really is for the most part. That's why we have steam engines. I think there is a very good probability that this is not all smoke and mirrors.

 

BTW, the system we will be installing is the GMS Hydro-4000 unit. I'm still doing more research, but it looks viable enough. I spoke with my tech (while he was cursing me from under the hood of the LGT) about this and he gave me his blessings and said it should work. He's an automotive engineer as well as a certified SOA tech. Also added he will be building his own version to install on his truck because he's tired of paying $100/tank and only getting 10 mpg (but that's also from the way he drives... he's insane and there are numerous times I've thought I'd die with him behind the wheel). I thought he would have given me a 2 hour lecture about why it was all bogus and BS, wtf was I even thinking considering it, but was extremely surprised when he said ya, do it. Also surprised the hell out of my disbelieving husband who said pretty much the same thing as most of you guys... I don't believe it, it's BS and a giant waste of money.. blah blah blah. But I'm going to list this as a business expense.... so, it won't be his money to lose if it doesn't work.

 

So, everyone pray that they get the LGT running tomorrow morning! I kinda need the car running in order to do this experiment in the first place! oh yes, I won't be tracking the car (ok, maybe at least one time down the strip just to see what I can get with her completely stock). If this does work as well as they are saying, I will most likely look to install it in the STI, maybe even become a dealer and sell the "greenmachines" for my friend. No matter what happens, work or not work, this will certainly be interesting.

 

Starting tomorrow, I will start a new thread (once the LGT is confirmed alive and running) to establish base runs and parameters.

[ehsnils]

Only really efficient use of water in an engine to improve performance would be to add a water injection system.

[DrCloud]

Regardless of who says what, it's clear from first principles that the additional combustion energy associated with the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen into water is insufficient to drive a hydrolysis process to create that hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. Pissing into the wind is a more productive activity than discussing this. As has been noted, perpetual motion machines are imaginary.

 

But here's a different line of reasoning:

 

The commercial versions of these devices that involve hydrolysis seem to be less than transparent, in terms of precisely how they operate. But it's fundamental to the hydrolysis process that the oxygen and the hydrogen separate themselves toward the cathode and the anode, respectively. Therefore, the two constituents are not necessarily in the form of this hydrogen+oxygen or HHO or "Brown's gas" mixture.

 

Now, it's well known that NOS injection improves the performance of internal combustion engines; this improvement is not from the chemical energy of the NOS itself but rather from the additional oxygen available to the combustion process. (There's also some fuel-mixture cooling from the evaporation of the nitrous oxide, rather like an intercooler effect.)

 

 

From a thermodynamic perspective, then, it's possible to ask: would the combustion improvements associated with adding hydrolysis-produced oxygen be sufficient to drive the hydrolysis with some energy left over for mileage improvements? (The hydrogen could easily be bled off.)

 

I, for one, doubt it, but that's an analysis that's tractable, at least. HPH

[erikvcl]

if the Pnut gallery is done mocking those of us who will be doing this as an actual experiment with real numbers, I'd like to see your real proof that it DOESN'T work. Show us someone who installed a similar system and how IT DIDN'T WORK.

 

Uh no... If someone is going to make fantastic claims about a product whose capabilities appear to violate the laws of physics, then burden of proof is only on the one making the claims.

 

If the water4gas system worked, don't you think they'd have concrete proof on their website? All they have is anecdotal "evidence" from customers. Doesn't it bother you that you're planning to spend money "proving" that this system works? Shouldn't the water4gas company have already done that?

 

What if Subaru said "it's up to you to prove that the '08 WRX Sti has 305bhp; we've never tested it". Would you accept that? Of course not. Why believe a fly-by-night internet scam company out to soak you but not believe in science?

 

This has nothing to do with having an "open mind" or "thinking outside the box". It really comes down to science (chemistry/physics) and evidence.

[erikvcl]

I think my realization that Brown's Gas (HHO) is really just water(H2O) is pretty much all the proof you need... along with the links I provided and the multiple explanations of the laws of physics from myself and others.

 

Spend the $$ on converting to E85. You won't get better mpg, but you'll pay less at the pump and it will be the best thing you could do for tracking the car.

 

Although I completely agree with your sentiments (i.e. water4gas is crap), I have to disagree with you about your characterization of Brown's Gas. See the Wikipedia article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas

 

Brown's gas is a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. This is quite different from water. In water, the three atoms are chemically bonded (e.g. the electrons are shared). In a mixture, there aren't these kinds of interactions.

 

Sugar-water is a mixture: When you add sugar to water, the sugar molecules are suspended in the water. Think of a room filled to the top with basketballs. Then add ping-pong balls to those basketballs. The ping-pong balls will intermix and "fill the gaps" between the basketballs. That's similar to the sugar-water solution -- and also similar to what Brown's gas is.

[tmillard]

Two funny things about this:

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28

 

1. What an unreliable POS a 2001 Dodge Durango is.

 

2. By my calculations their math is flawed. If you go from 9.4 MPG to 23.2 MPG isn't that actually an increase of ~147%? I mean if you double your MPG then you are getting a 100% increase and they more then doubled it. Now if I went backwards from 23.2 MPG to 9.4 MPG then I would have a loss of approx 60%.

 

Lets hope it works in our Alaskan friends car.

[coxx]

if the Pnut gallery is done mocking those of us who will be doing this as an actual experiment with real numbers, I'd like to see your real proof that it DOESN'T work. Show us someone who installed a similar system and how IT DIDN'T WORK. If you don't even know anyone who's done this, than you will just have to wait until we can get some real answers.

burden of proof is on you guys to prove it DOES work. The rest of us aren't taking something that's almost proven 100% effective & saying its a scam. We're taking something with no hard evidence that it works & saying "show us". & "my friend uses it" is not good enough b/c people will also tell you Criss Angel levitates in the air b/c they saw it in a vegas show

[leggtnut]

Just remember, AKLGT is still skepticle. She never said that it DOES work. She wants to prove/disprove the concept.

[SBT]

Just remember, AKLGT is still skepticle. She never said that it DOES work. She wants to prove/disprove the concept.

Exactly! - so give her some time to fit up her Leggy and do some logging. That's all she's asking - not making any claims, just wants an opportunity to prove/disprove the claims to herself and other's satisfaction. I applaud her commitment to the personal costs and the time required to do this.

SBT

[s car go]

Just remember, AKLGT is still skepticle. She never said that it DOES work. She wants to prove/disprove the concept.

 

If somebody told you that 2+2=5, would you go out and buy a bunch of apples, put two on the table, then another two, then count how many you had? Or would you just refer to what you learned in elementary school and tell the person they're mistaken?

 

This is kind of the same thing, except the reasoning for which the water4gas deal won't work requires that you know a little about science. I completely understand if the laws of thermodynamics doesn't mean anything to a lot of people here, but at least read through this page before wasting your money:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20070621083327/http://anti-rant.blogspot.com/2006/05/simple-truth-about-hho-and-water.html

 

He does a really good job of breaking this down into layman's terms.

[coxx]

Just remember, AKLGT is still skepticle. She never said that it DOES work. She wants to prove/disprove the concept.

how about this?

interesting. a good friend of mine has a business they are starting that sells these types of products. what they have found thus far after installing in 2 vehicles has been an incredible increase in fuel economy. From 14 mpg in their truck to 25 mpg. I say that's pretty significant. I have another friend of mine who installed one in his 98 Legacy GT that got about 22 mpg and now getting well over 40 mpg. So after seeing these installed and used on 2 personal friend's vehicles, I'm left to believe it does work and so far, working pretty damn well.

 

I'm left to believe it does work and so far, working pretty damn well.

[coxx]

bottom line is we can beat this horse forever with rhetoric from both sides of the coin but it wont make a difference till someone posts actual evidence