Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[seabass07]

For the high prices companies are charging for these devices, I'd expect real mpg changes shown in real controlled rolling road tests. These tests don't appear to exist.

 

All there seems to be is a lack of data. Fads with high claims that don't have tests to back them up will be viewed as snake oil by most consumers. Show me a controlled test by a 3rd party confirming a significant change in fuel consumption with the flip of a switch. Otherwise, just stop. This whole BS brings up images of turbonators and magic oil and gas additives.

 

There are easy ways of proving a technology works. It's called STFU and show me that it works.

[mwiener2]

You evidently do not know what a catalyst is or how it works - so let me

spell it out in elementary language. You get a little something that

stimulates a whole lot of something - sort of like enzymes that recycle -

they are in effect catalysts as are minerals are catalysts in a way that

let vitamins work, etc... in this case, the HHO is simply a catalyst that

allows the fuel to be used in a more efficient way. That has NOTHING to

do with claiming that the HHO cell is producing enough to produce enough

electricity to keep itself running, which is the actual premise to your

argument, even if you are not consciously aware of it. That extra energy

that is released made possible by the HHO interaction with fuel and air

was ALREADY sitting there in the forum of potential in that fuel. Here's the part where you try to win by calling everyone idiots. That usually works on the internet. Still doesn't produce an overall amount of hydrogen to make a noticeable difference and you're really long sentences still don't have any proofs in them.

 

 

 

With a cdi, you have have 2~4uf microfarad cap that is charged between

400~500 volts then discharged into the primary of an ignition coil. Because

of that stronger spark, MORE fuel is able to burn and MORE power is

released from the fuel than the electricity it took to run the CDI. That is

because the small input of the CDI charging power simply let more of

the potential that was ALREADY in the fuel (didn't magically come from

outer space) to be converted into actual measurable joules of energy

or in other words, WORK. Where did CDI come from. Does anyone here have CDI on their car? Anyone try an HHO machine with CDI? I bet if I used plasma it'd work! O wait, can't get a plasma ignition system for my car yet. Not that it would probably matter.

 

You put a little electricity in to produce some HHO and that HHO causes

MORE of the potential in the fuel that is ALREADY there to be released

so it can do more WORK. Maybe so, but still does not net an overall increase. Still working at a loss.

 

It is a perfect analogy to a CDI. If what you say is true, when you turn

on a CDI, the HP would have to REDUCE because you are drawing power

from the engine to charge the cap and you could never see an increase

in power because it takes more power to charge the CDI than will be

added to the combustion process.So since your mr. smarty pants, how many amps does a CDI draw when it's running? It must be hundreds to make such big mighty sparks. Sadly for you a CDI only draws a few more amps than a conventional system and people don't put CDI systems on engines to increase fuel economy.

 

I did post one federal govt document that acknowledged a test showing

that hho cells work - provide ONE single legitimate reference - not

lip service - from a credible university or credible lab showing that there

is zero benefit from a HHO cell. I posted one reference, there are more.

You and the birds of a feather ignore it and respond with childish jokes

and foolishness while all at the same time, all completely being unable

to comprehend anything I said. No, you posted some safety documents that talked about hydrogen but not in the manner you describe. You could quote the sections that claim what you claim, but you don't cause they aren't there. And the quotes you have posted have already been shot down, so try again later.

 

Also, the only real perpetual motion nuts are the ones that argue about

perpetual motions claims when there is no discussion about perpetual

motion. When people get distracted - their mouths start moving - just

watch any audience when the show gets disrupted. Just because

thoughts are going through their minds doesn't mean they are actually

thinking.Some some good arguments skills right there.

 

There is entropy in BOTH closed and open system governed by conventional

closed system thermodynamics and open system non-equilibrium

thermodynamics. BOTH systems contribute to entropy of the universe.

 

In my kite flying analogy, there is free energy input from the wind while

AT THE SAME TIME, there is entropy. However, the actual work in joules

of energy done in this system can be MORE than the child has to

contribute. So, there can be a net gain in work from a small investment.

This is the way EVERY natural system works - natural systems do not

obey the classical laws of thermodynamics - only a fool would believe

such a thing. All natural systems are perfectly described by

non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which DOES violate the conventional

closed system thermodynamics taught in elementary physics textbooks.This is you simply trying to make a case for your COP analogy and doing a horrible job at it. Your kite example has NOTHING to do with HHO generators or cars in general. It has very little to do with thermodynamics either. Thermodynamics is mostly about energy transformation with heat. there is very little heat energy being transfered to your kite.

 

Yes.

 

An associate added plasma ignition and steam injection. Leaned out the

jets on an old VW (1300cc I think) - and got a 43% increase in mileage.

Everything is cleaner, less emissions, more power, more mileage, and

there is NO detrimental effects from the lean mixture because the plasma

can extend the lean burn limit significantly.

 

The exhaust temp reduced by over 150 degrees!

 

The steam was super low tech - dripping water on the exhaust manifold

and the flash steam was ducted to the carburetor with a pipe.

 

Of course you'll need an o2 sensor mod as well as maybe the map/maf

sensor. But don't do that unless you know what you're doing. If you

have electronics that is.No mention of hydrogen.. o yeah, the plasma rips it from time and space. So this old carburated MPFI map/maf based VW.... That is a test bed engine. Maybe it does work. But it won't work as a production car nor do most of the technologies you mentioned exist on production cars.

 

 

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

 

The average HHO cell is 20-30 amps. No less than 50 and up to 200+?

That is a ridiculous attempt at explaining what these boosters draw. O really, cause that's the amount of power they draw and that's not a big secret. If you know how much power they really draw, you sure are shy about posting facts and numbers.

 

Those people that are using ultra high amperage are NOT trying to use

their a water cell as a catalytic booster, they are trying to get their

car to run on just water and will fail doing it that way. But the kits that this whole thread are about and this whole discussion is just that. And they fail.

 

So according to your analysis of a stereo draw, the average HHO cell

is drawing no more than your radio. No, it's 2 to 20 times as much and I showed that with numbers. Something you don't know how to do.

 

 

 

An EFFECTIVE cell that DOES boost power, mileage and reducing emissions

only needs 20-30 amps at the most. Any more than that and you

will be losing power. Only so much HHO can release more of the potential

that is ALREADY stored in the fuel and any more than that will be an

effort in futility. 20-30 amps will create enough hydrogen to detect it's presence but not enough to do anything with.

 

I'm telling you the facts - mwiener is grasping for straws based on

no experience in this field whatsoever. Facts with no basis or proofs. Those are the good ones.

[/i]

 

I posted a document from the department of energy stating that an HHO

cell gave a truck 4% increase in mileage and 7% decrease in particulate

emissions.

 

You and the other "skeptics" ignore that and you post a link to some NZ

google ad website and that is a scientific report? Get real! The document you posted was shown to be a safety release and was also shown to have the information you wanted, but only when you picked and choose which parts you wanted us to see. No where in that report did it say those gains were from on-board generated hydrogen. It got those gains from hydrogen stored on-board in compressed cylinders.

 

mwiener stated that my DOE reference was about bottled hydrogen

because he was incapable of comprehending the report. I pointed out

it was about hydrogen injection from a simple electrolysis cell and he

ignored that and so do you.Because that what it says in the report that you posted. Maybe you should read the damn thing yourself cause you sure as shit can't point to the place in the report that says otherwise.

 

mweiner and his skeptic associates are wrong.

 

But I have to admit that MOST of the people out there experimenting

and using HHO also don't know what they're doing.

 

But what you are doing is spreading misinformation too.

 

You state that "40% is how much HHO proponents claim their devices increase fuel economy"

 

Sorry, you're pulling numbers of out thin air and you are taking it out

of context.

 

The facts are that SOME people using HHO will claim that much and

higher. Most do not get that kind of improvement. The ones that do

get that kind of improvement, which some do, is because their cars

are only getting 1/2 the mileage the cars are supposed to get and

by getting a better burn, their mileage can start to creep up to where

it is supposed to be. So you are saying most people that use these devices see gains but those gains are not from the HHO itself. WOW, no one ever would have thought that or posted about it 100 times before!!

 

I have a friend that got a 100% increase in fuel mileage with a gas

additive. An old Chevy truck he was getting 7mpg on the highway and

got 14mpg on the highway after a couple tanks. Thanks for backing up the "it doesn't work" theory.

 

 

I bring up the equilibrium and non-equilibrium thermodynamics to show

the distinctions that I am starting to believe that I am the only one here

that understands what it means. And you do a great job of proving that understanding.

 

The HHO booster does not violate thermodynamics.

 

It is a catalyst and pushing the violating thermodynamics falsehood is

simply proof (not evidence) that you and the others griping about

thermodynamics have no idea what you are talking about. So proof and evidence don't have to agree here?

 

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

A refrigerator is about cop 3.0~5.0 and has nothing to do with perpetual

motion.

 

 

 

So am I wrong that a refrigerator can't be over 1.0 COP? Most are under

2.0 but I don't deal with most conventional technologies when it is so easy

to increase the COP of any refrigerant by 25% or more on demand. That is

normal, it can be up to 5.0 - but you probably don't know how or why.

 

Most science is law but I don't deal with those because it is so easy to try and convince a forum full of strangers otherwise. Get off your COP horse, it doesn't apply to HHO generators. I can increase the COP of my fridge too by spraying the coils on the back with water constantly, but that isn't gonna do much for my kitchen floor.

 

Again, what are the COP's of a refrigerator? I'm not sure, cause you say 2-5, but I say 1-3 and then you say most are less than 1 but it's really easy to make them 8 or 9.

 

Also, I posted links to references of wind generators using COP, etc... And we posted a video of an electric car with wind generators on it. What's your point? You're still using it incorrectly.

 

You of course conveniently forgot those and ignored those references

that dispute your claim that cop can only apply to heat pumps. A refrigerator is a heat pump. Heat pumps MOVE energy. Combustion is a conversion of energy. It's alot easier to move something that it is to convert it and that's why you get high COP's. It's not the rocket science you try to make it sound like.... which shows how much you don't understand because you can't properly apply what little you know

 

A ratio of our input to the output not including free environmental input

IS COP regardless of what kind of device it is on. It was only heat pumps

that used them first and for you to think you are such an expert on

heat pumps that COP can't be used on other systems is downright

laughable.

 

Again, what is the COP of a refrigerator? What brand and model, it's posted on that little yellow energy star sticker they all come with now. I would need to know what is in the fridge and what temperature it is at as well as some data about the fridge itself and the ambient temp. Then I could calculate the COP and even tell you how long it would take a 10lb ham to drop 10 degrees in the fridge. That's called using math to show an example. Something you have yet to do. Yet when other people post a few math examples you seem to glaze over. This is fun for me. I'm looking alot of stuff up and doing some research that I havn't done in a long time. The more you dig yourself a hole, the easier it's getting for me to throw you in it. Keep it up.

 

 

 

 

 

You also ROYALLY suck at posting on forums.

[qiman]

For the high prices companies are charging for these devices, I'd expect real mpg changes shown in real controlled rolling road tests. These tests don't appear to exist.

 

All there seems to be is a lack of data. Fads with high claims that don't have tests to back them up will be viewed as snake oil by most consumers. Show me a controlled test by a 3rd party confirming a significant change in fuel consumption with the flip of a switch. Otherwise, just stop. This whole BS brings up images of turbonators and magic oil and gas additives.

 

There are easy ways of proving a technology works. It's called STFU and show me that it works.

 

The DOE document references one test 4% increase, which is

statistically significant. And that is only one test. You and the others

completely ignore the FACT that there IS data.

 

Why don't you show all of us some credible tests showing it does not work.

Can you find any? Don't respond with hot air, just post the documents.

[seabass07]

The DOE document references one test 4% increase, which is

statistically significant. And that is only one test. You and the others

completely ignore the FACT that there IS data.

 

Why don't you show all of us some credible tests showing it does not work.

Can you find any? Don't respond with hot air, just post the documents.

 

Excellent idea. Why don't I spend thousands of my own money to prove or disprove something that could possibly save me a few tanks of gas over a year.

 

It's the responsibility of the manufacturer of a product to prove how well it works. I, as a consumer, can decide what it will take to convince me. That involves actual data from tests in a controlled environment with all information on how the tests were conducted. That DOE document that you quoted can easily be misinterpreted since it is basically just an off comment.

 

BTW, in my case with my car, that 4 percent = 0.72mpg. Spending over a thousand dollars for a piece of equipment that requires more maintenance that will give me such a small benefit makes no sense to me.

 

I really don't care about your "scientific explanation". The fact of the matter is that you are attempting to explain a small effect caused by a very small amount of gas added to a significantly larger amount of fuel/air in a system that is so complex and misunderstood (the actual molecular changes taking place in a combustion reaction) that it is easy to twist facts around to suit your point. IOW, where are the actual real world controlled tests. I as a consumer need to be convinced. That's how businesses work.

 

/rant.

[qiman]

mwiener - you use a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.

 

 

 

You evidently do not know what a catalyst is or how it works - so let me

spell it out in elementary language. You get a little something that

stimulates a whole lot of something - sort of like enzymes that recycle -

they are in effect catalysts as are minerals are catalysts in a way that

let vitamins work, etc... in this case, the HHO is simply a catalyst that

allows the fuel to be used in a more efficient way. That has NOTHING to

do with claiming that the HHO cell is producing enough to produce enough

electricity to keep itself running, which is the actual premise to your

argument, even if you are not consciously aware of it. That extra energy

that is released made possible by the HHO interaction with fuel and air

was ALREADY sitting there in the forum of potential in that fuel. Here's the part where you try to win by calling everyone idiots. That usually works on the internet. Still doesn't produce an overall amount of hydrogen to make a noticeable difference and you're really long sentences still don't have any proofs in them.

This paragraph I wrote was in response to your lack of being able to

comprehend the English language. "Proofs" or data has NOTHING to do

with my pointing out that you are arguing against the hho cell winding

up with a net loss in energy and that has NOTHING to do with the hho

cell making hho as a catalyst. That actually IS a "PROOF" that you

don't know how to comprehend what you are reading. Your response

doesn't address the points - it is only you responding like a programmed

robot to spit out the first thing that enters your reactive mind.

 

With a cdi, you have have 2~4uf microfarad cap that is charged between

400~500 volts then discharged into the primary of an ignition coil. Because

of that stronger spark, MORE fuel is able to burn and MORE power is

released from the fuel than the electricity it took to run the CDI. That is

because the small input of the CDI charging power simply let more of

the potential that was ALREADY in the fuel (didn't magically come from

outer space) to be converted into actual measurable joules of energy

or in other words, WORK. Where did CDI come from. Does anyone here have CDI on their car? Anyone try an HHO machine with CDI? I bet if I used plasma it'd work! O wait, can't get a plasma ignition system for my car yet. Not that it would probably matter.

Are you serious? Your response is of a 5th grade mentality - your

sarcastic remarks don't even address the logical points in my statements.

You put a little electricity in to produce some HHO and that HHO causes

MORE of the potential in the fuel that is ALREADY there to be released

so it can do more WORK. Maybe so, but still does not net an overall increase. Still working at a loss.

If there is ANY increase in MILEAGE OR HP, that is a NET GAIN.

 

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/report/Guidelines-H2-Fuel-in-CMVs-Nov2007.pdf

 

http://www.espusainc.com/govtsayshhoworks.jpg

It is a perfect analogy to a CDI. If what you say is true, when you turn

on a CDI, the HP would have to REDUCE because you are drawing power

from the engine to charge the cap and you could never see an increase

in power because it takes more power to charge the CDI than will be

added to the combustion process.So since your mr. smarty pants, how many amps does a CDI draw when it's running? It must be hundreds to make such big mighty sparks. Sadly for you a CDI only draws a few more amps than a conventional system and people don't put CDI systems on engines to increase fuel economy.

They are marketed for performance, which is an increase

in POWER and that will translate to increase in mileage if the electronics

do not sabotage it. When you get more POWER from a CDI, that

translates to more motive force to the wheels for the same amount of

fuel as well as a decrease in emissions. I have designed many high speed

capacitor charging circuits and I'm very well aware of how they work and

why they work and what kind of power they draw when they are being

powered. Your comments about people not using them for fuel economy

are clownish to the nth degree. That is like saying a spark plug can't be

used as a spark gasp for HV Tesla circuit experiments since they are

intended for use in an ICE - what you are claiming is downright ridiculous.

 

By inferring that CDI's are for power increase, which they can increase

power - that helps validate my own point that you can put a little power

into something and get a net gain in power because it is releasing more

of the potential that is ALREADY in the fuel. That is EXACTLY what HHO

is doing as a catalyst.

I did post one federal govt document that acknowledged a test showing

that hho cells work - provide ONE single legitimate reference - not

lip service - from a credible university or credible lab showing that there

is zero benefit from a HHO cell. I posted one reference, there are more.

You and the birds of a feather ignore it and respond with childish jokes

and foolishness while all at the same time, all completely being unable

to comprehend anything I said. No, you posted some safety documents that talked about hydrogen but not in the manner you describe. You could quote the sections that claim what you claim, but you don't cause they aren't there. And the quotes you have posted have already been shot down, so try again later.

My post above proves how delusional you are. It talks about hydrogen

EXACTLY in the manner I describe. Hydrogen created in an electrolysis

cell regulated by the throttle and that hydrogen is injected into the air

intake to mix with the fuel and air mixture and a corresponding decrease

in fuel consumption and a reduction in particulate emissions are a result.

You claimed it was from compressed hydrogen is WRONG. Your claim that

it does not describe what I'm describing is WRONG. You're on a roll.

I show you the references that an on board on demand electrolysis cell

gave a reduction in fuel usage - that is a NET GAIN from the small amount

of electricity used to produce that hydrogen.

 

PLEASE POST ONE MORE DOCUMENTS FROM A QUALIFIED LAB OR

GOVT AGENCY THAT PROVES THAT HHO DOES NOT WORK. DON'T POST

ANY GARBAGE FROM THE FTC ABOUT BUSINESS COMPLAINTS OF BOGUS

CLAIMS BY HHO MAKERS - I'M TALKING ABOUT A TRANSPORTATION OR

ENERGY RELATED DEPARTMENT OR QUALIFIED LAB - NOT THE BBB LOL.

Can you find any? Don't post any stupid news reports either.

Also, the only real perpetual motion nuts are the ones that argue about

perpetual motions claims when there is no discussion about perpetual

motion. When people get distracted - their mouths start moving - just

watch any audience when the show gets disrupted. Just because

thoughts are going through their minds doesn't mean they are actually

thinking.Some some good arguments skills right there.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

There is entropy in BOTH closed and open system governed by conventional

closed system thermodynamics and open system non-equilibrium

thermodynamics. BOTH systems contribute to entropy of the universe.

 

In my kite flying analogy, there is free energy input from the wind while

AT THE SAME TIME, there is entropy. However, the actual work in joules

of energy done in this system can be MORE than the child has to

contribute. So, there can be a net gain in work from a small investment.

This is the way EVERY natural system works - natural systems do not

obey the classical laws of thermodynamics - only a fool would believe

such a thing. All natural systems are perfectly described by

non-equilibrium thermodynamics, which DOES violate the conventional

closed system thermodynamics taught in elementary physics textbooks.This is you simply trying to make a case for your COP analogy and doing a horrible job at it. Your kite example has NOTHING to do with HHO generators or cars in general. It has very little to do with thermodynamics either. Thermodynamics is mostly about energy transformation with heat. there is very little heat energy being transfered to your kite.

Yes it does and just because you're incapable of understanding it doesn't make it not true.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

Yes.

 

An associate added plasma ignition and steam injection. Leaned out the

jets on an old VW (1300cc I think) - and got a 43% increase in mileage.

Everything is cleaner, less emissions, more power, more mileage, and

there is NO detrimental effects from the lean mixture because the plasma

can extend the lean burn limit significantly.

 

The exhaust temp reduced by over 150 degrees!

 

The steam was super low tech - dripping water on the exhaust manifold

and the flash steam was ducted to the carburetor with a pipe.

 

Of course you'll need an o2 sensor mod as well as maybe the map/maf

sensor. But don't do that unless you know what you're doing. If you

have electronics that is.No mention of hydrogen.. o yeah, the plasma rips it from time and space. So this old carburated MPFI map/maf based VW.... That is a test bed engine. Maybe it does work. But it won't work as a production car nor do most of the technologies you mentioned exist on production cars.

Here you are arguing about things that aren't relevant. He asked if steam can clean an engine and I answered that. It can work on a production engine if they simply incorporate it but they will not. You need to wake up and learn the ways of the business world. The automakers do NOT want efficient cars - they have fought it for ages - just pay attention to the battle the automakers have against the agencies that push for more mileage. Why don't we have the 75+mpg small diesel VW's here like they have in Europe? They're not welcome here! For ICE's these methods cause a clean burning engine so oil lasts longer, catalytic converters last longer, o2 sensors last longer, plugs last longer, pvc valves last longer, etc... They would jeopardize an enormous infrasructure built around providing replacement parts and the car dealer uses their service center to break even and pay for the dealership while the cars are where they make the profit. This isn't some stupid conspiracy theory, it is just business - and smart business on their part - although not very ethical but business on the conglomerate level isn't about ethics and doing the right thing - it is about earning the shareholders money - plain and simple.

 

 

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

 

The average HHO cell is 20-30 amps. No less than 50 and up to 200+?

That is a ridiculous attempt at explaining what these boosters draw. O really, cause that's the amount of power they draw and that's not a big secret. If you know how much power they really draw, you sure are shy about posting facts and numbers.

How much power they draw IS UP TO YOU! You think you just arbitrarily

just stick a hho cell to your car and let it just draw what it can draw?

They are most efficient being PWM'd pulse width modulated where you

set the duty cycle and frequency so you keep it efficiently running in the

range that you want. Then you account for the electrolyte if any.

Lye is corrosive and is not something I want vaporizing into my engine

even though it causes high conductivity for more more production because

more current can flow. Baking soda is safer but not as conductive.

Regular table salt is better than lye as far as being less corrosive.

Minerals in tap water is good enough for lower HHO production. You can

even electrolyze distilled water that has no conductive minerals because

when when the water is ionzied, that ionization conducts current with

no minerals but there is the least amount of production. I DID post FACTS

and NUMBERS - 20-30 amps is the exact range that almost all HHO

cells are designed to run at when using the HHO as a catalyst and this

is the range for 90% of the professionally made PWM's that are specifically

made to drive the cells - 20-30 amps! Making a claims of 50-200+ is

ludicrous.

Those people that are using ultra high amperage are NOT trying to use

their a water cell as a catalytic booster, they are trying to get their

car to run on just water and will fail doing it that way. But the kits that this whole thread are about and this whole discussion is just that. And they fail.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth at once. The TITLE of this

thread is: Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

That is for BETTER MPG meaning an HHO booster to add to the fuel/air

mixture. The topic is NOT about running a car 100% on HHO that is

produced from a cell so please stop the childish games acting like this

is what this entire thread has been talking about.

 

So according to your analysis of a stereo draw, the average HHO cell

is drawing no more than your radio. No, it's 2 to 20 times as much and I showed that with numbers. Something you don't know how to do.

Oh my, you got me so bad - what am I to do? You made a false claim,

I showed why - your claims of what the hho cells draw are pathetic.

 

An EFFECTIVE cell that DOES boost power, mileage and reducing emissions

only needs 20-30 amps at the most. Any more than that and you

will be losing power. Only so much HHO can release more of the potential

that is ALREADY stored in the fuel and any more than that will be an

effort in futility. 20-30 amps will create enough hydrogen to detect it's presence but not enough to do anything with.

20-30 amps on a properly designed cell can produce 1-2.5 liters per

minute, which is MORE THAN ENOUGH to act as a catalyst - and the

govt document that I PROVE to you above show you not only is it enough

to do something with, it gives a reduction in fuel consumption with

decrease in emissions.

 

I'm telling you the facts - mwiener is grasping for straws based on

no experience in this field whatsoever. Facts with no basis or proofs. Those are the good ones.

I show one credible document reference - where is yours?

[/i]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

I posted a document from the department of energy stating that an HHO

cell gave a truck 4% increase in mileage and 7% decrease in particulate

emissions.

 

You and the other "skeptics" ignore that and you post a link to some NZ

google ad website and that is a scientific report? Get real! The document you posted was shown to be a safety release and was also shown to have the information you wanted, but only when you picked and choose which parts you wanted us to see. No where in that report did it say those gains were from on-board generated hydrogen. It got those gains from hydrogen stored on-board in compressed cylinders.

No, I posted ALL the references to the hydrogen

injection - giving the definition of it (on demand

electrolysis cell and not compressed hydrogen as

you claim), referencing a test that decreased fuel

consumption and reducing emissions.Those gains

WERE from the electrolysis cell. You are choosing

to remain willfully ignorant or you are just addicted

to lying. I posted it, go read it in its entirety.

 

mwiener stated that my DOE reference was about bottled hydrogen

because he was incapable of comprehending the report. I pointed out

it was about hydrogen injection from a simple electrolysis cell and he

ignored that and so do you.Because that what it says in the report that you posted. Maybe you should read the damn thing yourself cause you sure as shit can't point to the place in the report that says otherwise.

Go read it.

 

mweiner and his skeptic associates are wrong.

 

But I have to admit that MOST of the people out there experimenting

and using HHO also don't know what they're doing.

 

But what you are doing is spreading misinformation too.

 

You state that "40% is how much HHO proponents claim their devices increase fuel economy"

 

Sorry, you're pulling numbers of out thin air and you are taking it out

of context.

 

The facts are that SOME people using HHO will claim that much and

higher. Most do not get that kind of improvement. The ones that do

get that kind of improvement, which some do, is because their cars

are only getting 1/2 the mileage the cars are supposed to get and

by getting a better burn, their mileage can start to creep up to where

it is supposed to be. So you are saying most people that use these devices see gains but those gains are not from the HHO itself. WOW, no one ever would have thought that or posted about it 100 times before!!

 

I have a friend that got a 100% increase in fuel mileage with a gas

additive. An old Chevy truck he was getting 7mpg on the highway and

got 14mpg on the highway after a couple tanks. Thanks for backing up the "it doesn't work" theory.

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

I bring up the equilibrium and non-equilibrium thermodynamics to show

the distinctions that I am starting to believe that I am the only one here

that understands what it means. And you do a great job of proving that understanding.

 

The HHO booster does not violate thermodynamics.

 

It is a catalyst and pushing the violating thermodynamics falsehood is

simply proof (not evidence) that you and the others griping about

thermodynamics have no idea what you are talking about. So proof and evidence don't have to agree here?

Since you don't know the difference, I'll explain. Evidence supports a proof but since you have made it all too obvious that you have no idea the distinctions, that in and of itself constitues all the evidence neccessary to PROVE you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

Originally Posted by qiman http://legacygt.com/forums/skynetim/buttons/viewpost.gif

A refrigerator is about cop 3.0~5.0 and has nothing to do with perpetual

motion.

 

 

 

So am I wrong that a refrigerator can't be over 1.0 COP? Most are under

2.0 but I don't deal with most conventional technologies when it is so easy

to increase the COP of any refrigerant by 25% or more on demand. That is

normal, it can be up to 5.0 - but you probably don't know how or why.

 

Most science is law but I don't deal with those because it is so easy to try and convince a forum full of strangers otherwise. Get off your COP horse, it doesn't apply to HHO generators. I can increase the COP of my fridge too by spraying the coils on the back with water constantly, but that isn't gonna do much for my kitchen floor.

 

Again, what are the COP's of a refrigerator? I'm not sure, cause you say 2-5, but I say 1-3 and then you say most are less than 1 but it's really easy to make them 8 or 9.

You are a pathological liar. I said most are under 2 not less than 1.

And I said they can be up to 5, not 8 or 9. Is everyone here falling

for your tripe? You should be running for office, both the democrats

and republicans can use someone like you. At least you admit a

refrigerator is over 1.0, which DOES violate closed systems

thermodynamics! That is the whole point to non-equilibrium

thermodynamics, which is what government labs refer to as N.E.T.

systems because they have a net gain in work done compared to input.

Also, I posted links to references of wind generators using COP, etc... And we posted a video of an electric car with wind generators on it. What's your point? You're still using it incorrectly.

You are wrong, COP is used in many contexts, don't let it get your

panties in a bunch. Just because chicken eggs are originally for making

chickens doesn't mean it can be used for a food. The COP term has been

applied to many NON heat pump systems, period, get over it.

[qiman]

Excellent idea. Why don't I spend thousands of my own money to prove or disprove something that could possibly save me a few tanks of gas over a year.

 

It's the responsibility of the manufacturer of a product to prove how well it works. I, as a consumer, can decide what it will take to convince me. That involves actual data from tests in a controlled environment with all information on how the tests were conducted. That DOE document that you quoted can easily be misinterpreted since it is basically just an off comment.

 

BTW, in my case with my car, that 4 percent = 0.72mpg. Spending over a thousand dollars for a piece of equipment that requires more maintenance that will give me such a small benefit makes no sense to me.

 

I really don't care about your "scientific explanation". The fact of the matter is that you are attempting to explain a small effect caused by a very small amount of gas added to a significantly larger amount of fuel/air in a system that is so complex and misunderstood (the actual molecular changes taking place in a combustion reaction) that it is easy to twist facts around to suit your point. IOW, where are the actual real world controlled tests. I as a consumer need to be convinced. That's how businesses work.

 

/rant.

 

4% is ONE example, there are more but it seems people like

mwiener can't even handle being honest about what that one single document

shows claiming that result is from compressed hydrogen.

 

Personally, 4% doesn't excite me but my own experience is beyond that

and so is many people I know that use the hho cells properly.

 

The AMOUNT of increase is irrelevant to the argument of if it

works or not and it clearly does - even according to the federal

govt.

[BAC5.2]

I get 4% better economy by driving more carefully. Prove to me that those who claim "HHO" improves economy are following the same non-"HHO" equipped driving habits.

 

All you've proved is that:

 

1) You aren't afraid to call people names, which is a good way to win an argument on the Internet, because Maddox told you so.

2) You are not a member of a government agency, the DOE, or a university laboratory. Which means you are likely little more than a Google-enabled fanboy who drank the kook-aide at some "water-for-gas" website.

3) You don't actually know anything about non-equilibrium thermodynamics. Your responses about it look like you copied and pasted from Wikipedia.

4) You don't know what word-wrapping is, which means you are probably typing your responses in Word, then copying them into Notepad to copy here. Or you are actually pushing Enter after each line you type. Both are funny to me.

5) Your points are exclusionary. This is a Subaru board. You have already admitted that "HHO" doesn't work unless we have plasma ignition that will He-Man the air apart.

6) You said that "HHO" allows you to burn more hydrogen for the available oxygen, which is wrong.

7) You have admitted that "HHO" does NOT produce a fuel that the engine burns. You've said that hydrogen is used as a catalyst for the combustion process. That is, very likely, not true to any significant degree. It also has nothing to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

8) Your sources say electrolysis generates hydrogen. Bill Nye the Science Guy told me at when I was in 4th grade.

 

I don't mind being wrong on any of the above, but not a single word you have said suggests to me that you have any idea what you are talking about.

[mwiener2]

I'm not gonna bother even reading that. Since you have so much knowledge on this subject, where is your HHO car with a proven net gain? That means it saves your more gas than $$$ you spent on making the stupid thing.

 

Show me one real world working example?

 

 

 

 

7) You have admitted that "HHO" does NOT produce a fuel that the engine burns. You've said that hydrogen is used as a catalyst for the combustion process. That is, very likely, not true to any significant degree. It also has nothing to do with non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

 

This is actually true. Big diesel engines use hydrogen injection for a boost. but they use alot of it and it comes from storage cylinders not generated on-board....

 

 

I did that research thing I was talking about. Here is a NASA research paper from 1977 stating that hydrogen from a storage cylinder or from a methanol generator improved emissions on gasoline engines, but not overall efficiency. This is useful to an engine manufacturer trying to meet strict government emissions standards. Kinda like urea injection in diesels.

 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf

[thefultonhow]

I'm not gonna bother even reading that. Since you have so much knowledge on this subject, where is your HHO car with a proven net gain? That means it saves your more gas than $$$ you spent on making the stupid thing.

 

Show me one real world working example?

 

There is none.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4276846

 

Cliff's Notes: PM did a real, controlled test and found no improvement.

 

Also, http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/gas-mileage/4310717. I'm not going to Cliff's Notes that one -- I'd rather that qiman do a point-by-point rebuttal, which I won't read, because it's a waste of my time and Popular Mechanics is a far more reputable source than he is.

[BAC5.2]

This is actually true. Big diesel engines use hydrogen injection for a boost. but they use alot of it and it comes from storage cylinders not generated on-board....

 

I was almost positive that Compressed Hydrogen is used as a fuel supplement, something an on-board HHO generator cannot do. That article I posted before discusses it as being used as a supplement or replacement to fossil fuels. Is Compressed Hydrogen used as a catalyst in trucks? The energy density of hydrogen at 700psi makes it a fantastic fuel source.

 

And as you mentioned, it also discusses it's use to reduce some emissions.

[sumfoo1]

The thing that's hysterical is this actually works... i mean you need a microwave transmitter several magnitudes of power higher than what you're looking to get out of it to produce it but the h2 o2 water trick works... Not only that the first guy to come up with it was assassinated supposedly by oil tycoons for it because he marketed it so well. But ultimately you need a megawatt transmitter to make a few hp worth of H2O2.

[rao]

I am using the turbo to compress the hydrogen - the difference in MPG is staggering.

[BAC5.2]

The thing that's hysterical is this actually works... i mean you need a microwave transmitter several magnitudes of power higher than what you're looking to get out of it to produce it but the h2 o2 water trick works... Not only that the first guy to come up with it was assassinated supposedly by oil tycoons for it because he marketed it so well. But ultimately you need a megawatt transmitter to make a few hp worth of H2O2.

 

The process of Electrolysis was discovered nearly 90 years before the first combustion powered automobile hit the streets. I don't think oil-tycoons were out in the dark streets assigning hits to physicists and chemists.

 

No one is arguing that you CAN'T decompose water into it's constituent elements. What we are arguing, is whether or not doing so onboard an automobile will yield results sufficient to improve the efficiency of the vehicle.

 

The answer is, unfortunately, no. The energy required to produce hydrogen will not be exceeded by the produced hydrogen. Whether it's a catalyst, or a fuel, or whatever, the simple math behind it is that "more efficient" means "more power", and if it were true you would be violating the second law.

 

Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics is a subject useful for solving problems like the restricted diffusion of non-interacting particles in the presence of a time-dependent potential. The initial and boundary conditions of solving those problems are so specific, it is nearly impossible to apply the concepts learned by solving them to something like an engine. I've actually solved problems like that one, and every single problem is a special condition. Every one also requires a new pencil, a couple of advil, and more than a few sleepless nights.

[BAC5.2]

I am using the turbo to compress the hydrogen - the difference in MPG is staggering.

 

You might be onto something here!

[sumfoo1]

The process of Electrolysis was discovered nearly 90 years before the first combustion powered automobile hit the streets. I don't think oil-tycoons were out in the dark streets assigning hits to physicists and chemists.

 

No one is arguing that you CAN'T decompose water into it's constituent elements. What we are arguing, is whether or not doing so onboard an automobile will yield results sufficient to improve the efficiency of the vehicle.

 

The answer is, unfortunately, no. The energy required to produce hydrogen will not be exceeded by the produced hydrogen. Whether it's a catalyst, or a fuel, or whatever, the simple math behind it is that "more efficient" means "more power", and if it were true you would be violating the second law.

 

Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics is a subject useful for solving problems like the restricted diffusion of non-interacting particles in the presence of a time-dependent potential. The initial and boundary conditions of solving those problems are so specific, it is nearly impossible to apply the concepts learned by solving them to something like an engine. I've actually solved problems like that one, and every single problem is a special condition. Every one also requires a new pencil, a couple of advil, and more than a few sleepless nights.

 

The guy who first powered a car with it first was killed.

 

And yes, i too, am a mechanical engineer.

 

(not to mention i was more dumping gas on a fire rather than offering insight)

[BAC5.2]

That sucks that he was killed, but no one is saying you can't run a car on hydrogen.

[qiman]

http://www.espusainc.com/govtsayshhoworks.jpg

[mwiener2]

Yeah, you posted that already. And the sentence in the report starts off "In theory". That's a real argument winner there.

 

That is also about diesel engines. The one I found was about gasoline engines. NASA > DOT

[fishbone]

A refrigerator

has nothing to do with the conversation at hand.

This is the problem with all other conversations on topic like this one. People fly off tangents and talk about theoretical stuff to convince themselves that the practice has no other choice BUT to follow all of it.

I know little about most of this stuff but I've been convinced that the contraption is nothing but a simple evaporator, a steam injector if you will.

[mwiener2]

No, it does produce some hydrogen. Some.

[thefultonhow]

I know, let's post a graphic that didn't answer the question the first time, in hopes that it will answer it this time!

 

qiman, do you have a rebuttal for the Popular Mechanics and Dateline pieces? Until you do, STFU and GTFO, because you have been comprehensively proven wrong.

[fishbone]

Yes.

 

An associate added plasma ignition and steam injection. Leaned out the

jets on an old VW

That sounds at least half-disingenuous to me based simply on the fact that old cars were not as fuel efficient as they are/can be today.

I could do the same thing (not to the extent of 43% increase in efficiency perhaps) to an old motor by switching it from carb to a fine-tuned direct-injected, ECU-controlled system. And if I were so inclined, perhaps even further by switching to a lighter crank, piston heads and any other moving part to lessen mass.

Being able to lean out jets thanks to a more efficient motor and/or more efficient burn is nothing ground-breaking, nor is it a newly discovered concept. So using that as grounds to prove anything beyond it is reaching.

 

Also, the practice is, if you do make such claims, they are accompanied by a link.

I want to know what year/make/model vehicle and how the mileage was measured before and after.

Why don't we have 75+mpg small diesel VW's here like they have in Europe

I am originally from Europe and I am not aware of such "small diesel VWs"

But I can tell you that even over in Europe diesels are debated and are regarded as being a matter of preference and choice.

You contradict yourself because going by your argument IF we had such diesels, the price for diesel would simply skyrocket to the point that would make it come out, in the end, out of our pocket, to work out roughly to what it is nowadays. Simple market supply-demand equation.

Speaking of which, the reason we do not have them is because they are very costly to make pass stringent emissions here and their price point is something that, even as we talk here, the buyers scoff at. Simply put, Americans are not as "desensitised" as Europeans and are not as willing to drop as much coin on many things. You want proof? Listen to all the people say "you want how much for XYZ brand?" And furthermore, look at the trend. VW worked hard to introduce sub 20s vehicles. The result is that they are even more removed from their upscale-ish European counterparts, have crap interior but they manage to move them off the lot because the perceived image of "German engineering" met a price that a consumer is willing to bear.

It is funny, really. You want VWs and wonder why they are not here, and at the same time talk about clean emissions. They don't make it here because contrary to all the ignorant American-bashing Europeans that think "we" are despotent, the emissions requirements, where enforced, are generally MORE stringent State-side. Case in point, California. And manufacturers can't have "vehicles for California and vehicles for everywhere else".

 

To say that vehicle manufacturers do not want fuel-efficient vehicles and are fighting against forces is to say they really don't want to be in the business of selling cars.

[fahr_side]

I can tell you that even over in Europe diesels are debated and are regarded as being a matter of preference and choice.

Yep. It's well understood now that even with the undeniable economy of the diesel, and the better resale value in the EU market, you still have to rack up very high annual mileage to actually see some $ savings. The break-even point depends of course on the model and use you're going to see, but many VW diesel models only make economic sense if you're doing over 80,000km a year and replacing the car every 3 years. My buddy was in a Passat wagon and for him he had to do over 100k a year to make it worthwhile to pick the 2.0TDI.

[rao]

But if you injected self-generated hydrogen into a diesel...

[fahr_side]

But if you injected self-generated hydrogen into a diesel...

Then it might take 200k a year to make it worthwhile.