Browns Gas? For better MPG! Tuning?

[fishbone]

Every time someone brings up how awesome diesels are on the foreign forums I frequent, it usually goes down as a flamewar with petrol owners countering points. Both camps are right and in the end the point is that diesel is not the end all, be all. What we can deduce from this, when we compare Europe to the US, is simply that the US has a fair less amount of diesel lovers than Europe. The corporations like to screw us over every little shiny penny, who in their right mind genuinely thinks they conspire to hold back a giant potential market?

And I would be the first in line to buy a turbodiesel Forester so no, I don't have an anti-diesel axe to grind.

[BAC5.2]

I'd gladly pay the price of admission to a Diesel vehicle. I'm one of the very few, who would earn back the investment and actually end up saving money in the long run.

 

I would SAVE (in cash) $350/month if I traded my Outback for a TDI Golf.

[qiman]

wiener can't get around the fact that document I showed is NOT theory.

It is a real test with a real car with real results that 100% refute his

bogus idea that you cannot get a net gain no matter what.

 

It is ridiculous for him to believe that - he claims it is from compressed

hydrogen - I proved it is from an on board electrolysis cell and not he

is changing his bogus story from compressed hydrogen claims to "theory".

If that isn't pathetic, I don't know what is.

 

There are COUNTLESS examples of on board generators that give more

than enough net gain in performance to more than make up the electricity

used to power the generator. Anyone that disputes this is an amateur.

[BAC5.2]

wiener can't get around the fact that document I showed is NOT theory.

It is a real test with a real car with real results that 100% refute his

bogus idea that you cannot get a net gain no matter what.

 

It is ridiculous for him to believe that - he claims it is from compressed

hydrogen - I proved it is from an on board electrolysis cell and not he

is changing his bogus story from compressed hydrogen claims to "theory".

If that isn't pathetic, I don't know what is.

 

There are COUNTLESS examples of on board generators that give more

than enough net gain in performance to more than make up the electricity

used to power the generator. Anyone that disputes this is an amateur.

 

The document you quoted clearly states that it was a limited laboratory test of an OLD diesel engine showing a 4% fuel use decrease. None of that applies to this board, or your initial claims.

 

With no details of any testing, no usable conclusions may be drawn from the results. Period. Period. Period.

 

I can get a 4% increase in economy by monitoring my driving. Anyone can.

 

Again, I will ask you to stop insulting members of this board.

[mwiener2]

I'd gladly pay the price of admission to a Diesel vehicle. I'm one of the very few, who would earn back the investment and actually end up saving money in the long run.

 

I would SAVE (in cash) $350/month if I traded my Outback for a TDI Golf.

 

My Yaris is a free car. It saves me more in gas by not driving my outback than my monthly payments cost. If it were a diesel version....mmmmmmmmm

 

 

 

wiener can't get around the fact that document I showed is NOT theory.

 

 

I proved it is from an on board electrolysis cell and not he

is changing his bogus story from compressed hydrogen claims to "theory".

If that isn't pathetic, I don't know what is.

 

There are COUNTLESS examples of on board generators that give more

than enough net gain in performance to more than make up the electricity

used to power the generator. Anyone that disputes this is an amateur.

 

I quoted the document YOU posted as starting it's sentence with , " In theory". It also seems really easy for you to say there are countless working examples, but you are unable to produce one.

 

What's pathetic and amateurish is your understanding of scientific method. You're way past 6 feet under, but keep on digging.

 

 

 

edit: I saw something in there were you said a refrigerator with a COP of greater than 1 violates the laws of closed-loop thermodynamics... It doesn't. It's quite easy to follow all of the energy through the system and all of it is accounted for and none of it was free. If you're confused, I can draw you a diagram. I only need 2 or 3 different color crayons.

[qiman]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

By switching it from carb to direct injection? I didn't say anything about

that so not sure why you think you need to do that for those increases

then you turn around and say leaning something out is nothing new

to get the results I state - seems to be a little cognitive dissonance

there somewhere. Disingenuous? Please. It was a conversation about

plamsa ignitions NOT HHO.

 

Plasma ignition, small amounts of steam injection and leaning out the

jets was all that he did to get 43% increase in fuel mileage. You are

wrong about it not proving anything - running an old VW engine at a

ratio up to 20:1 and MORE and have it actually run cooler is quite amazing.

It is simply increasing the thermal efficiency of an engine and leaning

it out. And by having it run at such a high efficiency does prove that

the gain is MUCH more than it takes to generate the electricity to charge

the capacitors to run the plasma ignition.

 

As a side note, the person that claimed I said plasma was

required for HHO to work is delusional or can't understand English.

I never claimed that.

 

Anyway, the diesel's I'm referring to are the VW Polo (60-70+ mpg) and

the VW Lupo, which can do 99+ mpg. I don't contradict myself at all

by having these cars in existence. You don't see them here in the U.S.

do you? And if they ever make them in, you can guarantee the mileage

will be downgraded because they will say it doesn't produce enough power

to be safe enough for the highway or that the American public doesn't

want this kind of design in a car or some other bogus reason. They exist

and because they are not in America at those MPG ranges completely

supports everything I said. So, you're from Europe but you conveniently

never heard of these cars - the Lupo has been around for 10 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/16/automobiles/behind-the-wheel-volkswagen-lupo-a-thrifty-spin-in-a-99-mpg-car.html

 

The Honda Civic VX, which was only produced a few years was over

50 mpg on the highway. Every model after that decreased in gas mileage

for the same size engines. You're not going to get away from the fact

that high efficiency engines are NOT a technological issue, it is a political

and economic one. While the Lupo was pulling 99+mpg, "president"

bush said 80mpg goal is unrealistic.

[mwiener2]

"Correction: September 23, 2001, Sunday An automobile review of the Volkswagen Lupo 3 Liter TDI last Sunday misstated the American equivalent of its European mileage rating. Three liters per 100 kilometers, an overall figure for combined city and highway driving, is the equivalent of 78 miles per gallon, although VW says the car has achieved 99 miles per gallon in highway driving under ideal conditions. "

 

 

And what's your point? This is a car forum for a car made in another country. We all know the US gets the shaft when it comes to cars. No one said regular cars can't get high MPG either.

 

The number 1 reason we don't get 70mpg cars is because they explode into little pieces when they crash and we Americans can't have each other getting hurt.

[qiman]

The document you quoted clearly states that it was a limited laboratory test of an OLD diesel engine showing a 4% fuel use decrease. None of that applies to this board, or your initial claims.

 

With no details of any testing, no usable conclusions may be drawn from the results. Period. Period. Period.

 

I can get a 4% increase in economy by monitoring my driving. Anyone can.

 

Again, I will ask you to stop insulting members of this board.

 

It is common sense - or so I thought.

 

Can HHO give a net increase to make up for generator losses? The

answer is yes and whether or not it is a diesel or gas is irrelevant.

wiener's claim is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics - and it

doesn't.

 

wiener also has no idea what a closed system is compared to an open

system. A fridge is open to environmental heat and closed system

thermodynamics do NOT apply. Non-equilibrium thermodynamics exist

for the very fact that all open systems are simply not explained or

governed by the laws of closed system thermodynamics. Using

closed system thermodynamics to explain open systems is as stupid

as using Chinese to translate German.

 

It is you and wiener and a few others that instigate the insults while I

have attempted to focus on the facts. Birds of a feather flock together.

 

You are personally part of the problem. It should be clear in your mind

that the argument is if HHO can increase mileage and the counter

argument is that it cannot because there cannot be a net gain in

mileage or power since it violates thermodynamics - the pro argument

is that it can and there is plenty of proof backed by govt, military,

university research that says it DOES. By completely ignoring the

FACTS of the document validating that HHO works and sprinkling the

magic misdirection pixie dust in everyone's eyes griping about it being

about diesel does NOT disprove HHO and has NOTHING to do with the

argument that HHO works, period, period, period.

 

I posted one valid reference showing the federal govt admitting that

an HHO booster has given an increase in gas mileage. You and wiener

cannot post one single legitimate reference showing that it is invalid.

Posing references from corporate magazines like popular mechanics, etc...

is NOT science - that magazine has posted some very stupid debunking

attempts at various technologies and they're too ignorant to know that

they need to reset the fuel computer between each test, etc... I'm

not talking about an HHO debunking article but others ones that I have

analyzed and many of the people that worked on those debunking

attempts do not know their exhaust port from a hole in the ground.

 

So no stupid magazine articles or new station stories - REAL references

by govt sponsored labs - JPL, ORNL, Batelle, credible universities, SAE -

no mail order schools now, etc...

[qiman]

We all know the US gets the shaft when it comes to cars.

 

Something we can agree on.

[mwiener2]

 

Can HHO give a net increase to make up for generator losses? The

answer is yes and whether or not it is a diesel or gas is irrelevant.

wiener's claim is that it violates the laws of thermodynamics - and it

doesn't. It does. We've been over this ALOT and not just with you.

 

wiener also has no idea what a closed system is compared to an open

system. A fridge is open to environmental heat and closed system

thermodynamics do NOT apply. Why are you back on the fridge. I've already proven I've got you beat in this department. The environmental heat is considered a constant because it is such a large number that just about anything human we can do is negligible (but then there's global warming and another thread) Non-equilibrium thermodynamics exist

for the very fact that all open systems are simply not explained or

governed by the laws of closed system thermodynamics.Such as trying to explain global warming using very very large numbers Using

closed system thermodynamics to explain open systems is as stupid

as using Chinese to translate German. You're very fluent in keyboard vomit

 

It is you and wiener and a few others that instigate the insults while I

have attempted to focus on the facts. Birds of a feather flock together. This is not instigating, it's learning you a lesson in STFU and GTFO

 

You are personally part of the problem. It should be clear in your mind

that the argument is if HHO can increase mileage and the counter

argument is that it cannot because there cannot be a net gain in

mileage or power since it violates thermodynamics - the pro argument

is that it can and there is plenty of proof backed by govt, military,

university research that says it DOES. By completely ignoring the

FACTS of the document validating that HHO works and sprinkling the

magic misdirection pixie dust in everyone's eyes griping about it being

about diesel does NOT disprove HHO and has NOTHING to do with the

argument that HHO works, period, period, period. Somewhere in that paragraph is a complete sentence. I think it said something about magic government pixie dust making some science articles appear. I guess the pixie dust isn't working today. You've posted one or two articles which were about as reliable as the magazine a links we posted. Check you own sources before you bash others.

 

I posted one valid reference showing the federal govt admitting that

an HHO booster has given an increase in gas mileage. You and wiener

cannot post one single legitimate reference showing that it is invalid. Our source was more informational and more reputable

Posing references from corporate magazines like popular mechanics, etc...

is NOT science - that magazine has posted some very stupid debunking

attempts at various technologies and they're too ignorant to know that

they need to reset the fuel computer between each test They and others have repeated the tests with non-computer controlled cars and still nothing happened., etc... I'm

not talking about an HHO debunking article but others ones that I have

analyzed and many of the people that worked on those debunking

attempts do not know their exhaust port from a hole in the ground.So you're saying other tests they've done were stupid so this one must be too. Macho Macho Man.....

 

So no stupid magazine articles or new station stories - REAL references

by govt sponsored labs - JPL, ORNL, Batelle, credible universities, SAE -

no mail order schools now, etc... Where's yours?

 

 

 

 

 

Something we can agree on.

 

 

Cooties!!!

[thefultonhow]

Posing references from corporate magazines like popular mechanics, etc...

is NOT science - that magazine has posted some very stupid debunking

attempts at various technologies and they're too ignorant to know that

they need to reset the fuel computer between each test, etc... I'm

not talking about an HHO debunking article but others ones that I have

analyzed and many of the people that worked on those debunking

attempts do not know their exhaust port from a hole in the ground.

 

Actually, they DID reset the ECU. Nice try. Can you disprove ANYTHING from the article?

 

I didn't think so.

 

Also, watch the Dateline NBC story.

[qiman]

The references I posted are from a paper from the federal department of

transportation. And YES, it is more credible than your lip service or

new stories.

 

Here's another - just because you ask - I'll ignore the rest of your

degenerate comments and insults:

 

@All, here is another reference - not HHO but proving you can rob

power from the very system you want to improve the efficiency of

and get a NET GAIN to overcome all losses from the generator that

improves the efficiency!

 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770015346_1977015346.pdf

 

From a NASA website - the document shows tests done by JPL,

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is a real reference unlike your

popular mechanics or new zealand newspapers

 

"The hydrogen enrichment concept requires that a part of the gasoline

fuel be used to operate the generator. The total usage of gasoline by the

generator and the engine has been shown to be less than an engine operating

without hydrogen enrichment because the increased engine efficiency more

than offsets the generator-associated losses."

 

This is not about HHO, but it is about robbing power from gasoline to

power a generator that frees hydrogen from the gas to be inserted

back to the air/fuel mixture greatly increasing the efficiency of a Chevy

Impala if you must know.

 

Your argument that doing anything like this violates thermodynamics

applies to ALL systems and methods that would rob power from itself

in order to make more power available.

 

Why does this JPL test work and why did it increase power? Because

all the hydrogen from gasoline is NOT available in the optimum form for

combustion and this is just one way to crack the hydrogen from the

hydrocarbon molecule and "HHO", which is not perfectly HHO, there is

also ozone created (o3) in an hho cell in various amounts and that can

also reduce the heptane molecule by creating varying amounts of

co2 and h2.

 

But these facts are just side notes.

 

The very premise of wiener's argument are that robbing energy from the

very system you want to increase the efficiency of cannot be done

because it violates thermodynamics.

 

Well, I don't know where he and the other skeptics get this nonsense

from because it is only true as a figment of their imagination.

 

Again, JPL states in no uncertain terms:

 

"The hydrogen enrichment concept requires that a part of the gasoline

fuel be used to operate the generator. The total usage of gasoline by the

generator and the engine has been shown to be less than an engine operating

without hydrogen enrichment because the increased engine efficiency more

than offsets the generator-associated losses."

 

wiener can claim that this is different because it is cracking H from

the gasoline and is completely different than using alternator power to

create HHO but it is NOT. It is the same sort of system regardless of

what kind of thermodynamics is involved.

 

The same thing is possible with Rabinovich's plasmatron cracker that

cracks H from gasoline or steam with plasma that is generated from

electricity produced from an alternator powered by the very gasoline

from the same system. MIT, a real source - NOT ridiculous debunking

articles from a commercial magazine supported by advertisers or

a NZ news website - was behind this technology. It was proven to

improve fuel efficiency up to 30% or more. That is generating WAY MORE

net gain in efficiency - MORE THAN ENOUGH to make up for the power that

was used to "reform" the fuel.

 

Again, this isn't HHO but wiener thinks I can't post references. I have

a ridiculous library full of references because I'm actually open minded

enough to want to learn what the truth is and not just make empty

narrow-minded arguments that do nothing more than just try to

maintain a false belief, while doing a disservice to everyone else that

reads the thread by trying to convince them it doesn't work WITHOUT

providing any credible references. Lip service isn't science.

 

There is plenty of info on the "M.I.T. plasmatron" and that JPL doc I just

posted a link is a valid reference that refutes wiener's bogus and

uneducated complaints that robbing power from the very system in order

to do something that releases more power is impossible.

 

Anyone can search on the MIT plasmatron and see the science behind

the boost in efficiency.

 

So again, so people here that are honest and have a degree of personal

integrity to look at the facts of what I'm posting should focus on the

facts that:

 

You CAN take power from the very system you want to improve the

efficiency in and have it return a NET GAIN in power to you, end of story.

100% of wiener's argument of why hho can't work is false and I've

proven that with government documents.

 

The DOT document about the 4% increase is proving that HHO gives

a net gain. The JPL document I just posted is another example that you

can take power from the system you want to improve on and return

a net gain by doing so. Anyone can search the MIT plasmatron and see

those references. There are COUNTLESS examples of this all across

the university, military, fed govt, etc... levels that quantifiably PROVE

with REAL science and REAL experiments that everything I'm saying is

true and that HHO works and there is no way around this fact.

 

Now I am not arguing for what results people can get because if someone

drives like an idiot, I'm sure they can get less mileage but in controlled

scientific tests, HHO gives an increase in mileage, which is an automatic

increase in thermal efficiency and power as well as a simultaneous

common sense reduction in emissions.

 

HOW MUCH of an improvement HHO can give has a very wide margin

because there are so many variables, but claiming an HHO cell can't give

a gain because it violates the laws of thermodynamics is one of the most

pathetic and scientifically ignorant claims I have ever heard in my life.

 

I will post more references when I can.

 

This JPL reference I'm sure will not satisfy wiener because he isn't

interested in the truth, he wants to maintain comfort in his mind by not

rocking the paradigm that his reality revolves around - but for those

that are actually looking at the FACTS that I am sharing - it doesn't

violate thermodynamics and it works, I'm sure you will appreciate that

reference showing the nature of the systems and that no laws are

violated and you can get a net gain MORE than sufficient to make up for

any losses in the generator you're using to get a net gain. That isn't

just implied, JPL explicitly states it - the skeptics will be fast in forgetting

these facts but for those with integrity, please share them.

 

"The hydrogen enrichment concept requires that a part of the gasoline

fuel be used to operate the generator. The total usage of gasoline by the

generator and the engine has been shown to be less than an engine operating

without hydrogen enrichment because the increased engine efficiency more

than offsets the generator-associated losses."

 

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770015346_1977015346.pdf

 

That document makes a good study by the way - 222 pages and

21.1 mb.

 

As a note, the ONLY time that Faraday's law of electrolysis would

come into play in ANY of this argument if HHO works or not is if you

are trying to electrolyze enough water to run the car 100% on HHO

so that it can run itself and generate enough electricity to keep

producing enough to make it's own gas. THAT would indeed violate

the laws of conventional thermodynamics and will not work.

 

Anyone using this as an argument against an HHO cell that simply

is intended to supplement the fuel/air mixture to help release more of the

potential that is ALREADY in the gasoline has no business even saying

the word thermodynamics because they are not qualified, they are

making up pure unadulterated lies based not on science but on imagination

are their opinion isn't worth the bits that it takes for them to type

up their tripe.

 

Keep everything in perspective people - HHO is a catalyst and the DOT,

JPL, plasmatron and other references prove 100% indisputably that

you can get a net gain in a system by taking potential from the very

system to release more energy within that system.

 

If the system is under 100% efficient, it can always be increased any

one saying that increasing an ICE efficiency from 19% to 21% for example

violates thermodynamics is a clown. honk honk

[qiman]

Actually, they DID reset the ECU. Nice try. Can you disprove ANYTHING from the article?

 

I didn't think so.

 

Also, watch the Dateline NBC story.

 

Nice try? You need to learn to read English - I said that was an example

NOT on an HHO debunking article. You are perpetuating LIES about what

I said and didn't way. It was VERY clear what I said and you are following

wiener's lead by outright making up bogus lies about what I said. Do you

have nothing better to do than blow hot air or can you focus on the TRUTH

about what I posted or not? I guess not!

 

I'll quote myself:

 

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

Posing references from corporate magazines like popular mechanics, etc...

is NOT science - that magazine has posted some very stupid debunking

attempts at various technologies and they're too ignorant to know that

they need to reset the fuel computer between each test, etc... I'm

not talking about an HHO debunking article but others ones that I have

analyzed and many of the people that worked on those debunking

attempts do not know their exhaust port from a hole in the ground.

[thefultonhow]

Nice try? You need to learn to read English - I said that was an example

NOT on an HHO debunking article. You are perpetuating LIES about what

I said and didn't way. It was VERY clear what I said and you are following

wiener's lead by outright making up bogus lies about what I said. Do you

have nothing better to do than blow hot air or can you focus on the TRUTH

about what I posted or not? I guess not!

 

I'll quote myself:

 

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

Posing references from corporate magazines like popular mechanics, etc...

is NOT science - that magazine has posted some very stupid debunking

attempts at various technologies and they're too ignorant to know that

they need to reset the fuel computer between each test, etc... I'm

not talking about an HHO debunking article but others ones that I have

analyzed and many of the people that worked on those debunking

attempts do not know their exhaust port from a hole in the ground.

 

Your ephemeral "other ones that I have analyzed" is, one, totally irrelevant in this situation, because the science on this particular article is sound (unless you show otherwise, which you haven't and, I'd venture to guess, won't be able to), and two, totally unsupported by any specific examples or evidence. Once again, nice try.

 

Oh, PS, tl;dr on your other post, but it's irrelevant until you can disprove the PM and Dateline pieces anyway. They effectively do an end-run around all your flawed logic and prove that HHO does not work with actual controlled tests.

[BAC5.2]

This is just as I thought. Qiman is little more than a conspiracy theorist, with no ability to prove his point.

 

Ignore the troll.

[thefultonhow]

Ignore the troll.

 

I may stop ignoring him if he manages to disprove the PM piece. I'm pretty bullish on being able to just reply to all his future posts with, "Have you disproved the PM piece yet?"

[BAC5.2]

Oo, that sounds like a fun game. I might borrow your line.

[thefultonhow]

Oh, I just looked up the MIT plasmatron. It's for reducing NOx emissions, not improving fuel economy. Once again, nice try.

[mwiener2]

The references I posted are from a paper from the federal department of

transportation. The DOT doesn't do the research. They pay other parts of the government to do it. So I wouldn't call a safety bulletin from them without any sources a creditable source. And YES, it is more credible than your lip service or

new stories.

 

Here's another - just because you ask - I'll ignore the rest of your

degenerate comments and insults:

 

 

 

From a NASA website - the document shows tests done by JPL,

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is a real reference unlike your

popular mechanics or new zealand newspapers

 

That's so amazing!!! I posted a link from the very same source!! OMG!!! Kittens!!!

 

 

 

This is not about HHO, but it is about robbing power from gasoline to

power a generator that frees hydrogen from the gas to be inserted

back to the air/fuel mixture greatly increasing the efficiency of a Chevy

Impala if you must know. No, it's not about the same thing at all. Do you read the stuff you post? The reports showed that mixing the hydrogen produced back into the engine for combustion did result in a better burn. The primary focus of the study was emissions related primarily to NOx. (Like I said earlier about one part of the gvmt order stuff from another... the EPA ordered the tests be done by JPL) The overall efficiency increases noted are because the gasoline is used in the generator before it is burned, not after. They did lower NOx, but this paper is from the 70's. We don't have the same NOx issues with our modern engines... without plasma ignition. They improved the V8 from 12mpg to 14mpg on a highly modified engine. It's not hard to make improvements when you have a lot to work with. I guarantee the same devices on a modern engine would lower rather than raise output. The scope of this thread also only applies to electrolysis hydrogen generation because I don't see any methane reformers on cars lately. We never said hydrogen wouldn't help combustion, we just said you can't create it with electrolysis on-board. I'd also like to see that whole setup work outside a lab.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The hydrogen enrichment concept requires that a part of the gasoline

fuel be used to operate the generator. The total usage of gasoline by the

generator and the engine has been shown to be less than an engine operating

without hydrogen enrichment because the increased engine efficiency more

than offsets the generator-associated losses."

 

Can't say the same for electrolysis generators... which is what we re talking about

 

wiener can claim that this is different because it is cracking H from

the gasoline and is completely different than using alternator power to

create HHO but it is NOT. It is the same sort of system regardless of

what kind of thermodynamics is involved. It's different, you smoke encyclopedias too much.

 

 

Again, this isn't HHO but wiener thinks I can't post references. I have

a ridiculous library full of references because I'm actually open minded

enough to want to learn what the truth is and not just make empty

narrow-minded arguments that do nothing more than just try to

maintain a false belief, while doing a disservice to everyone else that

reads the thread by trying to convince them it doesn't work WITHOUT

providing any credible references. Lip service isn't science. Google is not a library. There is also a difference between open minded and a fool. Waiting for Rapture is considered open minded as well.

 

There is plenty of info on the "M.I.T. plasmatron" and that JPL doc I just

posted a link is a valid reference that refutes wiener's bogus and

uneducated complaints that robbing power from the very system in order

to do something that releases more power is impossible. My NASA link states otherwise and mine is newer.

 

 

 

So again, so people here that are honest and have a degree of personal

integrity to look at the facts of what I'm posting should focus on the

facts that:

 

You CAN take power from the very system you want to improve the

efficiency in and have it return a NET GAIN in power to you, end of story.

100% of wiener's argument of why hho can't work is false and I've

proven that with government documents. No you haven't

 

The DOT document about the 4% increase is proving that HHO gives

a net gain.No it doesn't, we've been over this The JPL document I just posted is another example that you

can take power from the system you want to improve on and return

a net gain by doing so.I can do alot of things too if I change the parameters, like add a methane reformer Anyone can search the MIT plasmatron and see

those references. There are COUNTLESS examples of this all across

the university, military, fed govt, etc... levels that quantifiably PROVE

with REAL science and REAL experiments that everything I'm saying is

true and that HHO works and there is no way around this fact. And you picked the one that suites your argument but doesn't apply to ours.

 

Now I am not arguing for what results people can get because if someone

drives like an idiot, I'm sure they can get less mileage but in controlled

scientific tests, HHO gives an increase in mileage, which is an automatic

increase in thermal efficiency and power as well as a simultaneous

common sense reduction in emissions. What about the losses associated with the 120sec startup of the gas reformer?

 

HOW MUCH of an improvement HHO can give has a very wide margin

because there are so many variables, but claiming an HHO cell can't give

a gain because it violates the laws of thermodynamics is one of the most

pathetic and scientifically ignorant claims I have ever heard in my life. Most scientists hear that kind of stuff alot, so you must not get around much.

 

I will post more references when I can. We anticipate it.

 

This JPL reference I'm sure will not satisfy wiener because he isn't

interested in the truth, he wants to maintain comfort in his mind by not

rocking the paradigm that his reality revolves around - but for those

that are actually looking at the FACTS that I am sharing - it doesn't

violate thermodynamics and it works, I'm sure you will appreciate that

reference showing the nature of the systems and that no laws are

violated and you can get a net gain MORE than sufficient to make up for

any losses in the generator you're using to get a net gain. That isn't

just implied, JPL explicitly states it - the skeptics will be fast in forgetting

these facts but for those with integrity, please share them. How about something that's not 40 years old? I'm not hiding anything. I can say FACTS in big letters too.

 

 

 

As a note, the ONLY time that Faraday's law of electrolysis would

come into play in ANY of this argument if HHO works or not is if you

are trying to electrolyze enough water to run the car 100% on HHO

so that it can run itself and generate enough electricity to keep

producing enough to make it's own gas. THAT would indeed violate

the laws of conventional thermodynamics and will not work. We know.

 

Anyone using this as an argument against an HHO cell that simply

is intended to supplement the fuel/air mixture to help release more of the

potential that is ALREADY in the gasoline has no business even saying

the word thermodynamics because they are not qualified, they are

making up pure unadulterated lies based not on science but on imagination

are their opinion isn't worth the bits that it takes for them to type

up their tripe. If it is really so simple, why doesn't it work?

 

 

If the system is under 100% efficient, it can always be increased any

one saying that increasing an ICE efficiency from 19% to 21% for example

violates thermodynamics is a clown. honk honk You're the only clown cause we never said you can't raise the efficiency of an ICE. All we have said is this method is not one of those ways.

[NSFW]

The Honda Civic VX, which was only produced a few years was over

50 mpg on the highway. Every model after that decreased in gas mileage

for the same size engines. You're not going to get away from the fact

that high efficiency engines are NOT a technological issue, it is a political

and economic one. While the Lupo was pulling 99+mpg, "president"

bush said 80mpg goal is unrealistic.

 

The key difference is that gas in the US is cheap compared to overseas. So people in the US tend to be more interested in big (heavy) vehicles with lots of power and less interested in small (light) vehicles with little power. Plus we have fewer super-narrow streets since most of our roads were paved after the invention of the automobile.

 

In other words, Americans buy SUVs because they can. It's not a conspiracy, it's just economics and hedonism.

 

Back when I drove a BMW 325 (2.5L) I found it interesting that 325s were quite rare in Europe, but 318s and 316s were common (1.8 and 1.6L). I've never seen 316 here in the US. Gas is too cheap, and power is too fun.

[05COLEGGT]

Another point about us Americans is that we tend to be pretty lazy when it comes to any sort of 'mod' that requires periodic upkeep as well as the knowledge to perform such a 'mod' and said upkeep. I know when I had the HHO gen on my car it wasn't my fav thing in the world to have to pull the stainless plates out and clean them off. There's a reason why its called 'brown gas' lol. Bottom line is this. Until someone can invent a virtually maint free system that the average Joe can install and use it will NEVER gain more support than it currently has.

[BAC5.2]

Bottom line is this. Until someone can invent a virtually maint free system that the average Joe can install and use it will NEVER gain more support than it currently has.

 

It would also help, you know, if it worked.

[fishbone]

qiman

Anyway, the diesel's I'm referring to are the VW Polo (60-70+ mpg) and the VW Lupo, which can do 99+ mpg. I don't contradict myself at all

by having these cars in existence.

Are you serious? The Lupo and Polo? I have driven both. They get that mileage because they are effectively clown cars. Now I love my clown car, I have a supercharged MINI, but if you honestly believe Americans would trip over themselves to the dealer to buy those, you are fooling yourself. Even MINI has a diesel NA, the MINI One. These cars don't make it over here for other reasons that have nothing to do with conspiracies.

So, you're from Europe but you conveniently never heard of these cars

As I said above, I have actually driven both, one was owned in the family. I did not conveniently anything, I wanted to see what you had in mind. I stated they don't exist mistakenly in the idea that they would not get anywhere close that mpg here thanks to the stricter emission standards AND safety protocols. These two alone would:

-increase vehicle weight

-decrease the "breathing" efficiency of those tiny motors

Also, both cars are terrible on the highway. They are town cars. They are loud and obnoxious and anything but comfortable if you put them on a long stretch of highway. Enjoy listening to a diesel motor sitting at ~3K rpms for the entire trip. They are fun around town though. So while it's nice to talk about cars on paper, you have no practical experience.

qiman, if you are formulating your posts in notepad and then copy/pasting them here, please do this.

Take off word wrapping BEFORE you copy/paste. It should parse the text correctly.

You know what else gets very good mileage for a gas engine? The 1.2 litre Fiesta, which I have driven long before it made it's way on the US market (even though we don't get the 1.2). Talk about a lethargic motor though. If you have the AC on, you cannot hope to shift under 3K.

 

Also, as it's been mentioned, gas here is significantly cheaper and another reason Europeans buy small displacement motors is because once you pass the 3-liter threshold, you pay BIG taxes. They have taxes on displacement in addition to other taxes, in case you did not know. How would you like to pay 1 grand a year for a 3.5 liter V6? But if you watch closely, nobody is really, honestly, seriously, genuinely happy with the things they call motors that we over here would use to actuate our windshield wipers. As soon as they get some nicer income, they jump to larger displacement.

[fishbone]

Also, the Lupo has been out of production since 2005, is quoted as being a town car as I stated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo). It was replaced by the Fox which does not get that mpg. This vehicle is also aimed specifically at the urban life. Have fun with a ~60hp engine which takes over 17 seconds to hit 60.

I will pretend that the top speed of around 100mph is no issue since we don't drive that speed, but take it even to 80 and that car is scary. And we DO drive 80-85 in some states here.

[mwiener2]

My Yaris puts down 64hp on our dyno. It's plenty