Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[fishbone]

Most of the articles Qiman linked to use other methods of providing the hydrogen, which is why they show minimal gains. Most of the these other methods only work in the lab and are simply not feasible to put on a production car.

This is why this argument is not "winnable". Qiman is invested so he constantly changes "the target". We were a bunch of skeptics for not beleiving the cheap POS kits that are sold to work, and we got from that to plasma and the conspiracies shrouding the reason they are not mass used.

[BAC5.2]

Hydrogen IS a catalyst. Gasoline has a stoichiometric burn of 14.7:1, but other fuels have different ratios. By adding hydrogen, you can change the ratio. It's not quite that simple, but it does make the combustion happen better.

 

Every article I've found on hydrogen injection uses it as a supplemental fuel. That includes the SAE article I posted, and the one a few pages back about hydrogen fueled vehicles.

 

If it were a catalyst, the hydrogen injected would be left unconsumed out of the exhaust, and you'd be able to measure that. That's the definition of a catalyst. It speeds up the reaction without being consumed in the process.

 

Gasoline has a stoichiometric combustion ratio of 14.7:1. If Hydrogen were truly a catalyst, all that would happen is that the reaction would happen more quickly. Stoichiometry is independent of reaction rate, so if hydrogen were a catalyst the stoichiometric ratio wouldn't change.

 

The problem is that the amount of hydrogen required to make a difference is far greater than what can be produced on-board using electrolysis. Most of the articles Qiman linked to use other methods of providing the hydrogen, which is why they show minimal gains. Most of the these other methods only work in the lab and are simply not feasible to put on a production car.

 

Correct. On-board electrolysis will not provide hydrogen in sufficient quantities (in an appropriate amount of time) to provide any benefit.

[BAC5.2]

Actually, he's said a couple times that's not how it works.

 

And then he goes on to claim the 2nd law is bogus anyway, just to mess with you.

 

He says explicitly that Hydrogen is not used as a fuel. He says explicitly that it's a catalyst. And that the end result is power production greater than the power consumed in the production of hydrogen by a significant margin.

 

He has not proven that the second law is bogus, and I think he doesn't understand the mathematics involved in a claim like that, or what non-equilibrium systems actually are.

 

His claim implies that you could take this "excess" of power, and use that to power a larger generator, to make more hydrogen from a jam jar, forever and ever and ever, pushing engine efficiency above 100%.

 

Since he said that his claims have nothing to do with perpetual motion, means that there is an upper limit to the gains you can achieve. And to say that, validates the second law of thermodynamics, which invalidates every claim that he has made.

 

/thread.

[mwiener2]

I guess Qiman got me saying catalyst, but you got my point. Hydrogen injection works, just not when generated on-board. Just like propane injection.

 

 

But I figured out how to make a perpetual motion machine using a plasmajigger and hydrogen. You inject a small amount of hydrogen and burn it. That produces water. Then you use your plasmajigger, powered by the alternator of course, to plasma the hydrogen and oxygen back out of the water and then burn it again. This could work....

[NSFW]

He has not proven that the second law is bogus, and I think he doesn't understand the mathematics involved in a claim like that, or what non-equilibrium systems actually are.

 

His claim implies that you could take this "excess" of power, and use that to power a larger generator, to make more hydrogen from a jam jar, forever and ever and ever, pushing engine efficiency above 100%.

 

Since he said that his claims have nothing to do with perpetual motion, means that there is an upper limit to the gains you can achieve. And to say that, validates the second law of thermodynamics, which invalidates every claim that he has made.

 

/thread.

 

No, just he's saying that you get more energy from the gasoline than normally get. ICEs running on gasoline and air are a long way from 100% efficient - there's plenty of room for improvement without being over-unity-batshit-crazy.

 

I'm not sure what's more comical, the fact that he goes off on tangents about the 2nd law, or the fact that you follow him on those tangents.

[BAC5.2]

He says that "HHO" makes more power than it consumes. The fact that his concept has an upper limit, means that it obeys the second law. Because it obeys the second law, means that the energy consumed in the production of hydrogen will be greater than the energy generated by its presence.

 

You can't have it both ways.

[BAC5.2]

I guess Qiman got me saying catalyst, but you got my point. Hydrogen injection works, just not when generated on-board. Just like propane injection.

 

Yes, hydrogen injection works. But the hydrogen is a supplemental fuel. All this talk about it being a catalyst is the babble of someone who wears a tinfoil hat.

 

Propane works great in diesels, it's almost a no-brainer mod if you are willing to give up the space the tank requires.

 

 

But I figured out how to make a perpetual motion machine using a plasmajigger and hydrogen. You inject a small amount of hydrogen and burn it. That produces water. Then you use your plasmajigger, powered by the alternator of course, to plasma the hydrogen and oxygen back out of the water and then burn it again. This could work....

 

That's what I've been saying!

[thefultonhow]

No replies in over 48 hours?

[fahr_side]

No replies in over 48 hours?

Hey, it gets tiring beating a dead horse.

[BAC5.2]

I think the servers at "bat shit crazy consipracy" must be down.

[thefultonhow]

I think the servers at "bat shit crazy consipracy" must be down.

 

[NSFW]

He says that "HHO" makes more power than it consumes. The fact that his concept has an upper limit, means that it obeys the second law. Because it obeys the second law, means that the energy consumed in the production of hydrogen will be greater than the energy generated by its presence.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

No, he says that "HHO" lets the car use more of the energy in the gasoline than it would otherwise.

 

The only people taking the leap from "get more energy than otherwise" to "get more energy than you put in" are you an mwiener.

 

If you're going to try to discredit his position (and I don't fault you for that) you should at least take a minute to understand his position.

[mwiener2]

Hey, don't mix me in with BAC5.2

 

 

I support the hydrogen better burn club. I just don't support the generation of the hydrogen on-board.

[thefultonhow]

No, he says that "HHO" lets the car use more of the energy in the gasoline than it would otherwise.

 

The only people taking the leap from "get more energy than otherwise" to "get more energy than you put in" are you an mwiener.

 

If you're going to try to discredit his position (and I don't fault you for that) you should at least take a minute to understand his position.

 

Two things --

 

1. This "catalyst" shit is BS. The same number of C-H bonds split into shorter chains will produce the same amount of energy. Even if it doesn't, as BAC5.2 notes, the hydrogen reacts with the other molecules in the combustion chamber, thus making it, by definition, NOT a catalyst.

2. You seem to have missed the part where HHO DOES NOT WORK. Using the EPA fuel economy testing regimen, there was NO CHANGE between before the HHO system was installed and after. In fact, when the HHO system was switched OFF after installation, fuel economy went UP (as the Dateline piece notes, this was probably due to an oil additive that was put in at the same time as the Smucker's jars). We can talk about catalysts and non-equilibrium thermodynamics until the cows come home, but in real, controlled laboratory testing, it's clear that HHO is a farce.

[NSFW]

You seem to have missed the part where I said I was using a charitable interpretation of the word "catalyst."

 

I never said that it works, because I don't believe that it does. I was just pointing about that BAC is railing against a straw man again.

[qiman]

You seem to have missed the part where I said I was using a charitable interpretation of the word "catalyst."

 

I never said that it works, because I don't believe that it does. I was just pointing about that BAC is railing against a straw man again.

 

You seem to be the only one with common sense here. And I'm not

implying to everyone that you agree with what I'm saying - just

that you are actually reading what I'm saying for what I'm saying and

not just making up crap out of thin air that has nothing to do with what

I said like these others.

 

Yes, it is "HHO", which is actually composed of about a dozen molecular

and atomic species and they can reduce the heptane molecule so that

more potential stored in that fuel that is already there can be released.

 

And yes, as it has already been discussed, is that catalyst is being used

loosely to explain that it is the "HHO" ingredients that are acting on the

fuel for more of it to burn. NOT "hydrogen used as a catalyst" as some

goofballs want to make up out of thin air. There is also oxygen.

 

Anyway, there are MULTIPLE reactive oxygen species created during

commonly ducted electrolysis and they all reduce gasoline, diesel,

propane, methane, etc... During electrolysis, a few of the ROS include:

HO-, superoxides like O2- and HO2, ozone 03, etc... ALL of these and

more are produced during very simple electrolysis.

 

These all oxidize the hydrocarbon molecules and allow more BTU's of

what is ALREADY there to be released. These oxidizers also are able

to oxidize the nitrogen that is coming into the combustion chamber.

 

Anyway, the ROS can break hydrogen from the hydrocarbons forming

different carbon oxides - while freeing up some atomic and diatomic

hydrogen. The atomic is obviously short lived but when you get a bunch

of h2 cracked from the heptane on contact, it should be very obvious

why the thermal efficiency of the engine goes up and it doesn't matter

if it is diesel, gasoline, propane, etc...

 

It has nothing to do with burning the hydrogen produced from electrolysis

to get more power. I already said that the HHO mixtures when burned,

especially when burned by themselves will simply instantly recombine

back into a water molecule SHRINKING in volume and therefore there is

no real thermal expansion. Anyone can put straight HHO into a container

with a boost gauge so they can see pressure and vacuum, ignite it,

see a small amount of pressure, then it is followed by a vacuum that

negates the expansion so HHO does not contribute by being thermally

expansive.

 

BACS said I don't understand the math, the JPL AND Plasmatron clearly

show that you get a net gain in thermal efficiency MORE than what it

takes to "reform" the small amount of fuel to crack hydrogen from it and

when that gets burned, MORE than enough to make up for the generator

loss. And, those methods are actually working by exploding the extra

hydrogen to get more power and not the "catalystic" way that HHO does.

Those are NOT about compressed hydrogen as some keep claiming.

Those are robbing some gasoline from the very system in order to crack

hydrogen from it, introduce that freed up hydrogen to the fuel/air mixture

to get a NET GAIN in power above and beyond the electricity generation

requirements to crack that hydrogen to begin with. It doesn't matter

that it is not HHO, it defies and definitely proves with very credible

labs JPL/NASA/MIT that, that you CAN get a NET GAIN in power when

you simply manipulate the stored potential that you are already dealing

with.

 

Claiming the Plasmatron is about reducing nox is called, searching google,

reading one article that brags about it's ability to reduce nox while

not even comprehending anything about it. READ ON, I don't care

if you girlfriend is the dean of MIT, that doesn't qualify YOU to understand

anything. Go do the research, up to 30% increase in thermal efficiency!

 

That doesn't just mean reduction in emissions, that means increase in

power than you are getting from the SAME amount of fuel. I have every

patent Rabinovich ever got - it isn't an MIT device, Rabinovich just went

to MIT for support - he already invented it and MIT simply helped to fund

more of the development and that is why they are the assignees. I have

Rabinovich's first Russian patent too - and the ONLY fuel input into it

is STEAM - getting hydrogen from steam by cracking it with plasma and

when that is introduced into an air fuel mixture, you get a NET GAIN in

power MORE than what is required to generate the plasma in the

plasmatron to begin with. And besides the patents, look at the published

articles there - you have not comprehended what you are even reading

if you insist with your bogus claim that it is about only reducing emissions.

When you reduce nox - what else is happening? Cooler running engine,

denser air charge meaning you are able to cram more oxygen into the

engine for the same amount of fuel, etc... Get real - go study the facts

and don't just quote one sentence from an article that suits your motives.

 

To the guy that states the VW's with high mileage were all quoted in

imperial gallons and in US gallons they aren't high mileage anymore, the

Lupo can do 78MPG in US gallons - that his huge. It is irrelevant any

arguments about it being a small joke car, the point is - those high

mileage cars CAN be made.

[BAC5.2]

No, he says that "HHO" lets the car use more of the energy in the gasoline than it would otherwise.

 

The only people taking the leap from "get more energy than otherwise" to "get more energy than you put in" are you an mwiener.

 

If you're going to try to discredit his position (and I don't fault you for that) you should at least take a minute to understand his position.

 

"HHO" can't LET the car do anything. That's the same as saying that a stove LETS water boil.

 

Again, he has said that injecting hydrogen generated onboard will provide a net increase in economy. It won't. It takes energy to perform electrolysis, and in order to see a net gain in efficiency, the engine must produce a surplus of power.

 

So the ONLY way "HHO" is going to get you a net gain, is if the power generated by the engine after the introduction of "hho" is greater than the energy it takes to create the "HHO" in first place.

 

What qiman is saying, is that "HHO" generators allow you to break the second law of thermodynamics, because they allow more energy to be created than is required to produce the "HHO" in the first place. That's wrong. It doesn't happen. He is suggesting that you can create energy from nothing.

 

His position is built on a horrendous understanding of the principles of thermodynamics (non-equilibrium or otherwise), and physics.

 

All of the articles posted, and all of the global research done, and even what qiman has said in the past show that his foundry is incorrect. The fact that you can lean out your car in the presence of hydrogen means that the hydrogen is getting burned. It's being used as a supplemental fuel. Every single paper that has been posted has shown that very fact. Since STP hydrogen has the very tiniest fraction of the energy density per voume of gasoline or diesel fuel, it requires MASSIVE quantities of the gas to supplement the fuel being burned (or massive pressures). I posted two articles that confirm that. To generate those quantities onboard, requires a generator you'd have to tow behind the car.

 

Just to get a 5% decrease in consumption, you'd have to inject 2.8L of lonely H2. To generate that in a time span the engine could actually use, you'd need to tow a generator that would, without question, significantly decrease the fuel economy of the vehicle towing it (let alone consume fuel itself).

[BAC5.2]

You seem to have missed the part where I said I was using a charitable interpretation of the word "catalyst."

 

I never said that it works, because I don't believe that it does. I was just pointing about that BAC is railing against a straw man again.

 

A "charitable" interpretation? WTF is that? You should have just said that hydrogen is being used as a banana, then.

 

I'm not railing against anything.

 

I know hydrogen injection works. I also know that generating it onboard does not work. The idea that hydrogen is a catalyst, in any definition, is wrong.

[BAC5.2]

You seem to be the only one with common sense here. And I'm not

implying to everyone that you agree with what I'm saying - just

that you are actually reading what I'm saying for what I'm saying and

not just making up crap out of thin air that has nothing to do with what

I said like these others.

 

I've read what you are saying, and your arguments are entirely flawed.

Yes, it is "HHO", which is actually composed of about a dozen molecular

and atomic species and they can reduce the heptane molecule so that

more potential stored in that fuel that is already there can be released.

 

Where do they get the energy to "reduce the heptane molecule"? Molecular and chemical bonds don't break because you ask nicely, it requires energy to do it. Where does that energy come from?

 

And yes, as it has already been discussed, is that catalyst is being used

loosely to explain that it is the "HHO" ingredients that are acting on the

fuel for more of it to burn. NOT "hydrogen used as a catalyst" as some

goofballs want to make up out of thin air. There is also oxygen.

 

Please use a more accurate term than "catalyst". You can't just make up the definition of words when trying to argue your point.

Anyway, there are MULTIPLE reactive oxygen species created during

commonly ducted electrolysis and they all reduce gasoline, diesel,

propane, methane, etc... During electrolysis, a few of the ROS include:

HO-, superoxides like O2- and HO2, ozone 03, etc... ALL of these and

more are produced during very simple electrolysis.

 

That's wrong also. During electrolysis 2H20 is broken down in to 2H2 and O2. No O3, no O2-, and no HO2.

 

Unless molecular chemistry is as "wrong" as classical thermodynamics...

These all oxidize the hydrocarbon molecules and allow more BTU's of

what is ALREADY there to be released. These oxidizers also are able

to oxidize the nitrogen that is coming into the combustion chamber.

Do you know what oxidization means?

Anyway, the ROS can break hydrogen from the hydrocarbons forming

different carbon oxides - while freeing up some atomic and diatomic

hydrogen. The atomic is obviously short lived but when you get a bunch

of h2 cracked from the heptane on contact, it should be very obvious

why the thermal efficiency of the engine goes up and it doesn't matter

if it is diesel, gasoline, propane, etc...

 

What is an "atomic"?

 

Again, where does the energy for breaking bonds come from?

It has nothing to do with burning the hydrogen produced from electrolysis

to get more power. I already said that the HHO mixtures when burned,

especially when burned by themselves will simply instantly recombine

back into a water molecule SHRINKING in volume and therefore there is

no real thermal expansion. Anyone can put straight HHO into a container

with a boost gauge so they can see pressure and vacuum, ignite it,

see a small amount of pressure, then it is followed by a vacuum that

negates the expansion so HHO does not contribute by being thermally

expansive.

 

Burning the "HHO" "ingredients" doesn't just turn them back into water. Are you kidding? Not a funny joke.

 

When burning hydrogen, is there a net change in temperature? (hint: yes). That means that energy from combustion goes into two things.

 

What you just said, is that Hydrogen cannot be used as a fuel.

BACS said I don't understand the math, the JPL AND Plasmatron clearly

show that you get a net gain in thermal efficiency MORE than what it

takes to "reform" the small amount of fuel to crack hydrogen from it and

when that gets burned, MORE than enough to make up for the generator

loss. And, those methods are actually working by exploding the extra

hydrogen to get more power and not the "catalystic" way that HHO does.

 

BAC5.2. I take the time to get your name spelled correctly, I expect the same in return.

 

I don't think you understand the math. I think that whatever brainwash crap you've read has simply convinced you that the math exists. I, on the other hand, actually DO understand that level of mathematics.

 

Again, if you are generating more energy than you are consuming in the production and consumption of "HHO" using an onboard generator, then why can't you expand that concept to an engine that powers itself using "HHO"?

 

Why can't you have an engine that turns a generator, to power an "HHO" generator, that injects all the fuel the engine will need? Why hasn't that been done?

 

No one is arguing that Hydrogen can't be used as a fuel (well, except for you. You argued that by saying that burning hydrogen and oxygen only created water and provided no change in thermal energy).

 

Again, you are using "catalyst" to describe "HHO". So not only does the work that JPL and Plasmatron simply restate what people know (that you can burn hydrogen in an engine), but it is entirely unrelated to what you are talking about.

 

Those are NOT about compressed hydrogen as some keep claiming.

Those are robbing some gasoline from the very system in order to crack

hydrogen from it, introduce that freed up hydrogen to the fuel/air mixture

to get a NET GAIN in power above and beyond the electricity generation

requirements to crack that hydrogen to begin with. It doesn't matter

that it is not HHO, it defies and definitely proves with very credible

labs JPL/NASA/MIT that, that you CAN get a NET GAIN in power when

you simply manipulate the stored potential that you are already dealing

with.

 

I haven't seen a single article you posted mention that the energy utilized for electrolysis is generated by the engine that "HHO" is feeding.

 

The SAE article that I posted (at your request), written by a world leader in the field, does say that non-compressed hydrogen injection works. His testing? Plugging that generator into a wall socket. Why? Because the amperage required to generate a beneficial amount of non-compressed hydrogen is beyond the capability of the alternator attached to the engine.

Claiming the Plasmatron is about reducing nox is called, searching google,

reading one article that brags about it's ability to reduce nox while

not even comprehending anything about it. READ ON, I don't care

if you girlfriend is the dean of MIT, that doesn't qualify YOU to understand

anything. Go do the research, up to 30% increase in thermal efficiency!

 

In the Government article I posted before, the impact of hydrogen hybrid fueling was a decrease in NOX emissions.

 

Show me where an "HHO" generator (powered by the engine it's fueling) gives a 30% increase in thermal efficiency.

That doesn't just mean reduction in emissions, that means increase in

power than you are getting from the SAME amount of fuel. I have every

patent Rabinovich ever got - it isn't an MIT device, Rabinovich just went

to MIT for support - he already invented it and MIT simply helped to fund

more of the development and that is why they are the assignees. I have

Rabinovich's first Russian patent too - and the ONLY fuel input into it

is STEAM - getting hydrogen from steam by cracking it with plasma and

when that is introduced into an air fuel mixture, you get a NET GAIN in

power MORE than what is required to generate the plasma in the

plasmatron to begin with. And besides the patents, look at the published

articles there - you have not comprehended what you are even reading

if you insist with your bogus claim that it is about only reducing emissions.

When you reduce nox - what else is happening? Cooler running engine,

denser air charge meaning you are able to cram more oxygen into the

engine for the same amount of fuel, etc... Get real - go study the facts

and don't just quote one sentence from an article that suits your motives.

 

Plasma ignition isn't something shocking. It's actually been done, and it does work. I didn't think anyone was saying that it doesnt. But, none of our cars have plasma ignition, do they? No cars in production do, do they? And of the conceptual ones that do, do you think that a pasta sauce jar with some water and some steel plates in it is going to improve their efficiency even more? No.

 

To the guy that states the VW's with high mileage were all quoted in

imperial gallons and in US gallons they aren't high mileage anymore, the

Lupo can do 78MPG in US gallons - that his huge. It is irrelevant any

arguments about it being a small joke car, the point is - those high

mileage cars CAN be made.

 

I don't recall anything in the sales brochure for the Lupo about it having plasma ignition, or a sauce jar under the hood that you had to fill with water every so often. I'm pretty sure that little car got 78MPG all on it's own.

 

And what about the VW 1-liter? Volkswagen, at "the cutting edge of modern technology, powers their super-hyper-miler with a 1-liter direct injection diesel engine. No plasma ignition (duh), no pasta sauce jars.

 

How about the Progressive X-Prize? The Mainstream winner did it with an EGR controlled turbocharged 250cc gasoline engine running on E85. No jars or plasma ignition, and almost 100mpge in an Urban setting, and significantly over 100mpge on the highway.

 

Of course these kinds of high efficiency vehicles can be made. No one argues that.

 

Give it up man. You aren't going to convince me, and I doubt you'll convince the others who disagree with you. Calling all of us names isn't going to help your position.

 

I will be the very first to admit I am wrong... when I am. But your "proof" is so detracted from the point, and so incomplete or circumstantial, that there is no way in the world I'd believe what you are saying.

 

And, seriously, is it that hard to word wrap?

[fishbone]

qiman: STOP mentioning the Lupo. The car has not been manufactured for 6 years now. It is a discontinued model.

It was replaced by the Fox, which is a CITY car.

There is nothing magical about a 3-cylinder 1.2 engine that churns out a craptacular 52hp.

Fuel economy? 36/55mpg in imperial

Which in US means 29/45 mpg

There are a shitload of diesels that can pull a better mpg than that. My 1995 Sentra XE used to get me 31mpg in the city and about 45 mpg on the highway, out of a 1.6 liter 110hp motor.

The purpose of the Fox is to be a small city vehicle, akin to what the classic Mini was purposed for: cities where space is at a high premium.

You are either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?

 

Theoretical physics are great. I call them theoretical because they are not put in practice in the widely sold kits we are talking about.

So instead of talking about theoretical physics endlessly, how about some articles which have tested and proven the kits that are being sold en-masse? NOT some esoteric plasma ignition kit that some hobbyist came up with.

[thefultonhow]

And yes, as it has already been discussed, is that catalyst is being used

loosely to explain that it is the "HHO" ingredients that are acting on the

fuel for more of it to burn. NOT "hydrogen used as a catalyst" as some

goofballs want to make up out of thin air. There is also oxygen.

 

Anyway, there are MULTIPLE reactive oxygen species created during

commonly ducted electrolysis and they all reduce gasoline, diesel,

propane, methane, etc... During electrolysis, a few of the ROS include:

HO-, superoxides like O2- and HO2, ozone 03, etc... ALL of these and

more are produced during very simple electrolysis.

 

As stated, electrolysis produces H2 and O2. Nothing else. Your "species" are bunk.

 

These all oxidize the hydrocarbon molecules and allow more BTU's of

what is ALREADY there to be released. These oxidizers also are able

to oxidize the nitrogen that is coming into the combustion chamber.

 

Let's go over how combustion works.

 

The basic reaction is C[many]H[many] + O2 = CO2 + H2O.

 

Occasionally, you get an incomplete burn. You may get hydrocarbons, CO, and NOx exiting the combustion chamber. There is such a small amount of these by-products that the catalytic converter takes care of it all. There is not enough to extract very much power from it at all. If there was, it would be fed back into the engine and reburned.

 

Explain to me again how HHO manages to extract lots of remaining power from these tiny amounts of by-products?

 

You claim an efficiency increase from 19% to 21%. Too bad that engines are 19% efficient because the rest of the energy is converted to HEAT. HHO does not convert heat back to power; thus, it does not increase efficiency.

 

And, those methods are actually working by exploding the extra

hydrogen to get more power and not the "catalystic" way that HHO does.

 

WTF does "catalystic" mean? That's not a word.

 

It doesn't matter

that it is not HHO, it defies and definitely proves with very credible

labs JPL/NASA/MIT that, that you CAN get a NET GAIN in power when

you simply manipulate the stored potential that you are already dealing

with.

 

Actually, it does matter. HHO is fundamentally different from the other methods of hydrogen injection in that the other methods perform the electrolysis outside the vehicle. Thus, they do not use energy from the engine to make the engine more efficient, they use energy from some other place altogether.

 

Also, I should probably point out that you can't have it both ways. You claim that HHO is a catalyst. Hydrogen injection from a compressed cylinder, which is what the other documents you found are about, is not used as a catalyst. So, once again, they're irrelevant.

 

Claiming the Plasmatron is about reducing nox is called, searching google,

reading one article that brags about it's ability to reduce nox while

not even comprehending anything about it. READ ON, I don't care

if you girlfriend is the dean of MIT, that doesn't qualify YOU to understand

anything. Go do the research, up to 30% increase in thermal efficiency!

 

Hey buddy, the burden of proof is on you. If you want me to read a specific article, go find the article! Don't expect me to go searching around for hours just so you can say, "Not that article!" I have better things to do, and as I said, the burden of proof is on you in the first place.

 

When you reduce nox - what else is happening? Cooler running engine,

denser air charge meaning you are able to cram more oxygen into the

engine for the same amount of fuel, etc... Get real - go study the facts

and don't just quote one sentence from an article that suits your motives.

 

Hahahahah. How would you use extra oxygen with the same amount of fuel? The ratio of O2 to hydrocarbons in a combustion reaction is constant. That's basic high school chemistry.

 

To the guy that states the VW's with high mileage were all quoted in

imperial gallons and in US gallons they aren't high mileage anymore, the

Lupo can do 78MPG in US gallons - that his huge. It is irrelevant any

arguments about it being a small joke car, the point is - those high

mileage cars CAN be made.

 

There's a huge difference between small, light cars with 3-cylinders or tiny 4-cylinders, and big heavy cars with much bigger 4-cylinders, V6es, or V8s. Of course small, light cars with tiny engines will get amazing fuel economy. And, conversely, of course big, heavy cars with big engines won't -- HHO or not.

 

Besides, this is all irrelevant anyway -- you haven't disproven the PM and NBC tests. Until you do, you're still wrong, no matter how much non-word-wrapped text you write.

[thefultonhow]

You are either ignorant or disingenuous. Which is it?

 

Both.

 

So instead of talking about theoretical physics endlessly, how about some articles which have tested and proven the kits that are being sold en-masse? NOT some esoteric plasma ignition kit that some hobbyist came up with.

 

I already found some articles. They prove qiman is wrong.

[BAC5.2]

I already found some articles. They prove qiman is wrong.

 

Join the club. Although now, words are being used "loosely" or "charitably".

 

Don't you see what that means?

 

It means I can put a croissant under my hood, and get 36 extra tacos per french horn.

 

Of course I'm using "croissant", "tacos" and "french horn" charitably.

 

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii287/bac52/projectrunningbladelandspeedrecordlawnmower-thumb-550x308-29902.jpg

[LuckyBob]

It means I can put a croissant under my hood, and get 36 extra tacos per french horn.

 

Of course I'm using "croissant", "tacos" and "french horn" charitably.

 

:lol:loud

 

I'm tempted to become a donator just so I can use this as my signature.

[LuckyBob]

A bunch of pseudoscience BS.

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OclttfJrUI8/TadZ5DOfzLI/AAAAAAAABSg/T2ZWxEMF72Q/s1600/the_more_you_know.jpg

 

...The less you fail. Right now, you're failing pretty damn hard.