How are GM and other companys concept hydrogen cars fueled if there isnt a pressurized tank? I know that there are working prototypes of them.

 

This is water things very intresting,I doubt it would work....I think I know where he got his Idea and design.http://nationalfuelsaver.com/ check it out. This one injects platinum in a liquid form,supposedly platinum mixed with fuel increases effeciency By 22%, and gives you a cleaner more complete burn. idk they have some intresting claims,saying your cars engine last longer cause it burns cleaner.

 

You can run a petro engine on rum. farmers have too much time on their hands..

 

I've been toying with giving this a shot on an old lawn mower engine. I just want to see if I can make more fuel than I use. If you can make more than is used, then you can bleed of the excess electricity to power your home.

Again, something that has lots of scientific evidence going back many years, saying that it won't work, but then again, Tesla was ridiculed about AC current. The electric chair has been used as a demonstration of the deadly power of AC current.

 

Once you get rolling a couple of alternators mounted to the rear axle could provide quite a pop of electricity without being a big drain on the actual motor. Circle track and other racing bodies have used them for years.

 

Not to mention that AC power is the only thing that makes long distance transmission of power possible in the first place.

 

well a gas turbine to run a car was more than just a pipe dream in the 60's and Chrysler pulled it off... just takes time and money to see if it can be done.
----------
there is already at least one gasoline/HHO hybrid car running about using this system. even if you couldn't run on just hydrogen its still worth looking into to boost the efficiency (MPG) of engines.

 

hahaha when you use a jelly jar for the product you know its not gonna work

 

i have the "run your car with water" guide, and im looking for someone to try it for me. i saw your post and if your interested please reply. i paid 50 for it just for kicks. i will send it to you for free if your willing to do it. my email is theoriginaldanika@yahoo.com

 

here is a good link to keep some of you informed, watch the news video and the other video and make you own judgement, i paid 4 dollars and 10 cents a gallon for diesel gas today. this is old news but worth looking at.
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

download his pdf.files its 243 pages of information on how to make it work and explains how it works onboard without the chances of it being explosive. they aired his work on the news only once. kinda makes you wonder if its really true. he said it would only be $1500 to install on most cars and could run on snow, salt water, or any kind of water.
http://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files..._Full_Data.pdf

 

Indeed!

As a fellow L03 owner and Georgian by the grace of God, I hope this dialog continues. What will be the final chapter for our cars? Is a conversion possible one day?

 

Platinum, sure... thats a good way to get things done. People are stealing catalytic converters to sell the platinum flakes in them if that gives you any idea what platinum costs.

I see a lot of by people with absolutely no experience, gee I wonder why. Dont you think that if this actually worked, that every car manufacturer would have already done it? They have countless dollars available from the US Govt for research into alternatives and there's no running example from them even with this stuff having been around longer than most people here have been alive for. How about the banter stops and some of you so insistent this is Tesla's next coming throw some money at it and prove the naysayers wrong?

 

Another fellow Mech. Engineer bored at work here! I have researched this stuff in the past and it is possible for it to work. The sites claiming it can output more energy that it uses and such is a myth. Theoretically it should be possible to get better gas mileage though because Hydrogen has a higher energy content that gasoline (stores more per amount of mass). Im going to keep reading up on this stuff and post more later tonight if i find anything interesting. Does anybody here know where to find info on setting up a gaseous fuel system (like the cars that run on forms of natural gas). As per why the big manufacturers arent using these systems....My guess would be that as cool as it is to have the entire electrolysis process exist within the car, It is not necessarily the safest practice to do so. Even after years of development, automotive manufacturers are just now finally getting hydrogen cells to the point where they are safe to put in a car. For a while I know BMW or honda was looking at having an electrolysis machine come with the car, sorta like a washing machine to put in your garage. When you need to fill up, just connect your car again. So the manufacturers are looking at storing hydrogen in more of a liquid form, which is expensive, but holds a lot more energy per capacity. These browns gas systems store the water, and minimize the amount of "fuel lines" because the gaseous hydrogen being produced isnt very dense. So...theoretically...all this does seem possible, who wants to be a guinnea pig?

 

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I need to drop my two cents here.

I have been looking into this for my Camaro. (Whoever wants a guinea big, here I am). Also for my truck, but I want to try it on the car first. My uncle turned me on to it, and the reason I want to do it is this - every year, the emissions laws get tougher and tougher, and anyone in Cali or Jersey (me!) will tell you it gets harder and harder to get the vehicle past inspection.

Here's the basic skinny on it - you are not running the car on water. Quite far from it. What you are doing is supplimenting the regular gas with hydrogen supplied by the water. You are not getting rid of the gas, you are basically extending the distance you can go on a gallon. Allegedly, the percentages are astronomical in increased MPG. (I can't vouch for their validity though).

Essentially, the water as two pieces of metal (specific metals, which I do not remember right now) attached to either end of a battery. When current is applied, the metals create hydrogen gas in the water. (This is enclosed in a glass jar, which is the reason for the pickle jar.) The gas is piped into the air intake, mixing with oxygen into the engine, creating a cleaner burning engine.

Think of it this way - ever see a bunson burner in science class? The more oxygen in the flame, the dirtier and more orange/red the flame gets. Add more gas, the flame becomes smaller, hotter and blue. Same theory.

By having a cleaner burning engine, you have reduced emissions, and therefore a longer lasting engine because there is no "sludge buildup" in the engine. Allegedly, the need for oil changes as often is also reduced.

Am I a scientist? No. Am I an engineer? No. Do I work for the company? No. (Though one is based in Jersey). What I am is someone who likes his older vehicles, and is looking for a way to keep them on the road. Eventually, the gov't may come along and tell me that I need to crush the truck and car, and buy a grass powered flying car - but first they'll have to pry my cold, dead hands from the steering wheel.

If this device means I spend a little cash and keep my ride longer - then I am all for testing the theory.

Oh, and for those wondering about the volume of hydrogen - you can add as many jars as you want. They are wired in series, and the more you have, the cleaner and more efficient the engine.

Anyway, that's all I got. I've got a Camaro with a V6 and a carb and if anyone in the Jersey area wants to come and help me figure it out, then let's get together and end the debate.

 

See, this is the problem. Just now manufacturers are getting fuel cell cars safe? I was at a GM event 5 years ago and they had a running hydro car that they were giving drives in. How many years prior to that do you think they had an 'unsafe' version? This isnt new technology, there havent been any breakthroughs, and there's no new news. You need to waste energy to get energy. How much you have to waste is the question. So you use electric power from an overtaxed engine driven alternator to split hydrogen from water (not an efficient process in itself) and then supplement (not replace) some gas for hydrogen. I'll bet you the reason you arent seeing GM et al doing this is because the net energy equation does not add up to a benefit. But go ahead, do it. Stop saying hey it could work, go prove it. I'll be waiting and laughing in the meantime.

 

MADMAX, your request for someone to actually try it and confirm the results appear to have been already done by KMCCONKAY, you just choose not to believe him, so i think a better post from you would be to say what it would take to convince you.

As to the process itself i have no idea if it works, however, it would seem highly improbable that you could gain a perpetual motion machine from water, but equally i don't think that is what is being suggested here.

Or to put it another way i don't think they are suggesting that the hydrogen gas you get out of the water has a higher energy value than the electricity you put in producing it.

What i think they are suggesting is that a modest amount of hydrogen or more accurately HHO when mixed with your regular gasoline, allows the combustion process to run more efficiently, and that this efficiency increase is greater than the energy cost required to produce the HHO. This theory does not in itself break any of the laws of thermodynamics, as your external energy source is the gasoline, its is just an efficiency modifier.

Now i have no idea if this is an accurate assumption, and i would agree it would seem highly implausable for such a simple process to have been over looked for all these years, especially with the drive to reduce our carbon footprint.

However i think the first steps to reaching a conclusion on this is if an engineer could comment on whether such an efficiency improvement in burning gasoline is possible/likely with the addition of HHO in the process.

Personally i approach this as with most things with sceptical curiosity.

 

The second thing i would point out, is that comparing the safety argument of this process with traditional hydrogen cars is not relevant as they are not at all comparable.

The safety concern with traditional hydrogen cars is storing the hydrogen, not burning it.

with this process the amount of HHO they claim to produce is tiny, and used as soon as it is produced, so there is no build up of the gas to become dangerous.

And if you are worried about the gas leaking out, again the quantities are tiny. Remember even in traditional hydrogen cars, like in some of the BMW prototypes, they are not perfectly sealed. I believe BMW estimate the tank will empty itself is unused after a couple of months.

 

You should check out the hydranox5000 for around $300 you get the whole kit. It was exposed by Fox, tested by a police dept. and they swear by it. They also said that vehicles with a performance chip only get a power increase not a fuel economy increase

 

Searching around on the web, i found this supposed explanation of why the system works. I am not an engineer, and so make no claims as to whether this is accurate or not, but i throw it up here for discussion.

quote "
Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%


From the forgoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.

Assume a fuel-air mix is so lean as to normally take the entire power stroke (180°) to complete combustion. Educated estimates suggest the presence of nascent hydrogen and oxygen decreases the burn time of the entire mix by a factor of ten (10). If a spark advance of 4° is assumed, the burn would be complete at about 14° past top dead centre. Such a burn will be both rapid and intense. The piston would have moved less than 2% of its stroke by the end of the burn, allowing over 98% of its travel to extract work. The lower exhaust manifold temperatures observed when the Hydrogen Generating System was in use can be viewed as evidence for this occurrence.

Power consumed by this model of the electrolysis cell is about 100 watts. If an alternator efficiency of 60% is assumed, then 0.2233 horsepower will produce enough wattage. Even on a compact car, a unit would use less than ¼ % of its engine’s output, or about what is used by the headlights. The energy regained from burning the hydrogen in the engine is so small that virtually all of the power to the electrolyser must be considered lost. That loss should not, however, exceed V4%, so that any increase in the engine’s thermal efficiency more than ¼ %, is a real gain.

An engineering classmate suggested a grass fire as a useful analogy to understand combustion within an engine. The flame front of a grass fire is distinct and its speed depends in part on the closeness of the individual blades. If grass is first sprayed with a small amount of gasoline to initiate combustion, then all blades will ignite almost in unison. In much the same way, small amounts of nascent oxygen and hydrogen present in the fuel-air mix will cause a chain reaction that ignites all the primary fuel molecules simultaneously. Faster more complete burns are the keys to improving efficiency in internal combustion engines. Power gained from increased thermal efficiency, less the power to the electrolysis unit, is the measure of real gain or loss. It follows from the foregoing paragraph that even a modest gain in thermal efficiency will be greater than the power used by an electrolysis unit. The net result should therefore be positive. Thus onboard electrolysis systems supplying hydrogen and oxygen to internal combustion engines, fuelled by diesel, gasoline or propane, should substantially increase efficiencies.

While the auto industry searches for the perfect means of eliminating harmful emissions, consideration should be given to what these systems can do now, since the HGS considers reduction of harmful emissions even as the engine ages. Almost all unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO,, are eliminated. Reducing hydrocarbons and CO causes a slight rise in the percentage of CO2 in the exhaust, but as less fuel is used, the actual quantity of CO2 produced is reduced by roughly the same ratio as the savings in fuel. In brief, noxious gas is almost eliminated and greenhouse gas is decreased in proportion to the reduction in fuel consumption. Nothing I have learned so far has lessened my belief that the benefits of using electrolysis units to supply hydrogen to most types of internal combustion engines are both real and considerable.

Reprinted with the permission of George Vosper, P. Eng. June 1998

end quote.

 

Oh sure, more banter, more non proof.

Yea, someone who isnt working for them or selling their product, like a longstanding member here who's silly enough to buy the snake oil that always sells when pump prices are high, 'test' this so-called magical jam jar hydrogen power.

 

Longhorned do you work for them? it is a little strange that your only 3 posts are in this thread... and you are defending them more then anyone.

 

Kind of my point. These people with no posts here are jumping in saying its the greatest thing since sliced bread... well, ok. So why arent any of the manufacturers using this magic elixir? Usually the reason has this green paper stuff involved...

I'm sure I can increase my mileage 1000x by installing split fire plugs, wires, a tornado, an electric supercharger, HHO conversion, fuel molecule aligner, fuel catalyst, and the million other things I forgot about. Funny that the people that would profit the most from that (claiming super high MPG's and avoiding federal fines and scrutiny) arent doing it.

 

The manufacturers aren't doing it because they do not know the long term effects of these experimental fuel economy "upgrades" wether they work or not, car manufacturers keep their EPA ratings fairly close to be competitive while spending the least amount of time and energy (money) on R&D. Another reason is to be able to charge a premium when they do release their miracle vehicle hence the very large premiums paid to purchase a hybrid which will take at least 5 years to recoupe the extra expense by MPG alone. You may accuse me of working for these companies that claim their product is the "best thing since sliced bread" but you can find out for your self, I work at Country Chevrolet in Warrenton, VA, I am a sales consultant, my tag is my name. By the way the chevy volt will be capable of doing at least 60 miles on electricity alone with either a small internal combustion engine or hydrogen power plant to recharge it when traveling longer distances. Imagine the premium for that!

 

hehe no, i dont work for them. Of course you have no way of knowing that.

I am actually a house builder, who is looking for a way to save fuel on a boat. when you have a boat that takes a 1000 galons of diesel; fuel economy becomes a big issue.

First time on this forum, because i am not really a car guy, sorry. Like to drive them, but no idea what goes on under the hood, and in truth not that interested.

I simply jumped in because it felt like A) this was one of the few topics discussing them, and B) because i felt the conversation had gone off topic dealing with 100% hydrogen powered cars, which is not what these products are about.

I have since had a chat to another builder friend of mine, who races cars as a hobby, and he is looking into this now, so we may try and build a test. Of course even if i did, and it worked, it would not be proof, as i have no credibility here.

I Honestly have no idea if this is just a scam or not. logic would suggest it is, but who knows.

In hunting around on the web, one of the best financed companies seems to be hydrorunner, and on their website provide a test report from Automotive testing and development services based in california. Hydrorunner seems to be owned by a service garage called check engine, this may be their website, but not 100% sure http://www.gocheckengine.com/ , based in florida. Now i am from the UK, so this is not exactly my back yard, but if anyone is from florida, and know these guys, or california and know this test company, perhaps you could do some research and see if these guys are bona-fida. they also post their management team, so again does anyone know of any of these guys http://www.hydrorunner.com/management-team.html

link to the test report here, if I can link here. http://www.hydrorunner.com/data/atds.pdf

these hydrorunner guys are real expensive though.

Bottom line all i am saying is rather than just sounding off and calling it snake oil (which it may well be) all i am asking you to do some leg work and get to a real conclusion. If its a scam, then lets close these guys down simple as that.

anyway let the debate continue.

 

Fundamentally the question as to whether this works is very simple.

does the extra efficiency (IF ANY) of adding trace quantities of hydrogen, out weigh the energy cost of generating the hydrogen?

that's it in a nutshell. Are there any experts out there who could have a shot at answering this?

 

Ive been following this thread. So far, i'm neither for or against. But to prove or disprove this, wouldnt be easier to break this down to 2 parts. I dont have the tools or the knowledge, but maybe someone here does.

Part a: will the pickle jar produce hydrogen? how much? Is the quantity produced enough to sustain the mpg% increase they are claiming?

Partb: With a seperate bottle of hydrogen( dont know if you can get one)hooked to a intake. How much, and at what pressure would there need to be to get those same number?

If the numbers match, it could be plausible. If they dont match.......snake oil.

 

Go to www.hydranox5000.com their system doesn't look like a pickle jar by any means. If anyone here has tried it please let me know what you think, I have been thinking of trying it on my 02 jeep

 

I have very little to say about this but WOW! Umm yeah, if these kits work
there will be problems and they will be the same that th engineers from GM and the other big companies are running into. Hydrogen is very unstable and has a unbelievably high burn rate that acts like a big explosion. All this means is that it will have to be mixed just right or you will end up with holes in pistons from detonation like you have never heard. I have a friend who is a GM engineer working on the hydrogen program and they have blown all kinds of parts from the mix being just 2% off from prefect. GM is working to blend more water in with the hydrogen before injecting it but it is very unpredictable. The only company I know of in the world right now who has a working street driven system (AKA a rolling bomb as the GM guys call them) is BMW I believe it is a modified M3. Another issue that BMW has run into is the amount of electrical energy to convert the water on the move. The power demand is so great that it has dropped the power of the car by 40% due to the extra added alternators and weight from the batteries. Yet another issue is that if you run a carb engine is that the hydrogen is a vapor in most cases and that can cause vapor lock if you dont run a good tank mounted pump. Roush I heard was tinkering with a way to compress the hydrogen into a liquid and use their propane system to inject it but no real proof on that yet.

 

Pressurized Hydrogen is never a good idea. like said before, it is a bomb waiting to go off. remember the hindenburg? yea.......

 

Ok, I didn't read all of this, but in case nobody volunteered, I read about this recently on watertogas.com and I'm going to give it a shot. $200 isn't too much to toss at what would pay for itself fairly quickly if it works. Probably a month down the road, but yeah I'll try it. I have doubts about this system generating enough hydrogen quickly enough to keep up with the vacuum demands of a Chevy small block, but we'll see.

 

There's no proof needed what it would do in use, all the proof being offered is by those selling it, those with no experience with it, and those with no physics or science background at all. They're obviously the experts here, coming in with no posts, no proof, no background...

This is not new tech, its OLD. If you think GM has not seen this before 3 years ago you must be smoking something. But go ahead, stop arguing with me and go buy it and prove me wrong. I'll be sitting here waiting for your results. Someone on the Tech/General board already found out that acetone isnt the magical ingredient either. Its riding out there somewhere with the 300MPG carburetor. This one is next.

For those that dont understand, it kind of works like this:

Energy in - losses = Energy out
Thats a standard energy conversion, for anything. Nothing is free. So once you use all the energy to split the H out of the H2O (no small feat in itself no matter what nonsense you may read), you're already at a loss. If you put free hydrogen, if there was such a thing, into a bottle and dripped it into the motor... figureatively speaking of course... you'd have some benefit. But, since hydrogen isnt just floating around out there, it takes energy input to get it, from sources being driven by your gasoline powered engine. That alone is a terrible efficiency right there, go look it up and see how efficient an infernal combustion engine really is. So you're using a terrible source to create energy to split off hydrogen in a losing battle, only to recombine it at a net loss. And you think thats going to work? Perpetual motion machines dont exist. You do not net a gain in energy by converting from one source or form to another. If that was true, we would not have gasoline cars, or coal powerplants, or any other nonsense like that. But go ahead, try it, see where lack of knowledge in science and trust in salesmen gets you.

 

Sagemoon you are slightly mistaken. BMW is not the only one with a street driven hydrogen propelled model, Chevrolet also has one that is being tested in select markets, the fuel cell Equinox namely. If I were you I would seriously question you "GM" engineer friend's reliability.

 

MadMAX, have you actually read anything about the process we are discussing?

How many times can i say this, they are not running the car on hydrogen alone, or even in a large part.

The amount of hydrogen produced by these systems is about 1 litre an hour, and understand we are talking about a litre of gas, not liquid. If you still don't follow that mean very, very, very little hydrogen. Not enough to have any noticeable effect at powering the engine on its own, basically consider the actual burn value of the hydrogen a right off. The only role they claim the hydrogen has, is as an accelerant to the petrol combustion, making it burn quicker and hotter. does that happen, thats the question?

I get that you are skeptical, so am I. But at least find the faults in what these systems "claim" to do, and not what they don't. Frankly i expect their are some massive problems with what they claim, i just don't have the engineering knowledge to point them out, which is why i am here looking for help.

Sagemoonblade, i too would question your engineer friend, hydrogen powered engines are not that rare, they are around. the main problem is storing the compressed hydrogen safely (think what happens if you have a crash) not burning it. there may have been problems once, but its not new tech.

Either way, as i said again, the original post was not about 100% hydrogen powered cars, 100% hydrogen powered cars are real, they exist and work, but as MADMAX said, its not very efficient as you need to make the hydrogen which is costly, and store it which is potentially dangerous, and technically complicated. Basically it is doubtful they are the future, although a lot of money is certainly be spent on them. And to be clear i am talking about car which have the hydrogen produced offsite in advance and stored in liquid form at incredibly low temperatures, not the fanciful idea that you could ever make your own hydrogen by splitting water, and breaking all the laws of physics as we know them with a perpetual motion machine.

The original post was about this fringe science of pumping small quantities of hydrogen into an engine, and whether that actually has any impact at all on the cars performance.

 

Im with you longhorned, I see how it could work and why it might not but I guess I personally will never know until I try So here goes nothing, ill let you guys know what i find out

 

Wow, quite the thread...

I just have to raisE my hand and say that I have used a very simple and small browns gas generator.

Yes, It did work -- 95 gmc safari, gained 2mpg (up from 18 to 20) on 300 mile trip.

We've owned this vehice for 5 years and the best mileage it ever made was 18 highway. I think the small system we made up would be more efficent in stop and go traffic than highway but we never tested it locally because of the temperature.
(Im in WI what do think happens to water in the winter)

We tested to see what amperage it drew, less than 1amp

just my .02

 

I have read many articles and seen quite a number of segements on TV concerning GM's hydrogen fuel cars. Motorweek, comes to mind as being the most consistant at doing updates on this subject, if you had Speedvision then you may have seen some of Detriot Autoline's segments also. Yea the shows are supported by the big guy's in many different finacial ways and that could tend to color the discusion in a fantastical, zionistical, adoration. The facts are that GM nor any other Manufacturer is willing to take on the LIABILITY of putting out a product that's Unreasonably safe, or can't meet it's Advertised proficiancy.
They have constantly shown diagrams of the general break down in color. Even gotten specific enough to reveal that GM uses no less than 5 (F I V E) Carbon Fiber storage tanks for the Hydrgen Gas. I'm quite sure they have worked out the safety concerns of storage.
Rick Wagoneer was on Autoline recently and openly admitted that the part they are having the most diffuculty with is reliably delivering a consistant mixture of fuel. I.E. production variations are blowing the engine to bits and pieces. Also they are having diffuculties with BATTERY RELIABILITY. Costs of getting the right batteries developed and MASS PRODUCABLE have been Exceeding the value of the retail market.They have in the past year ramped up employment of specific engineer's to address the Issues with making their product Marketable. They don't do these things when something is just an exercise in R&D, the car of tommorow, or something.
I've worked in the railroad bussiness for many years now and if the government is ready to sign off on GM's storage design then I will believe it's safe. After all, They are the ones who have to answer for the alternative. I would hate to think that I have been Hauling upwards of 100,000 TONS of Liquid Hydrogen and Vinyl Chloride, thru downtown residential area's and it wasn't respectably safe in the case of your typical accident.
If you want to risk putting your daily driver on a HHO boosted fuel supply, then you better have a back up vehicle, cause even if you get it to work, you are going to have the same theoretical degree of difficulty in keeping the balance JUUSSST RRRIGHHT ALLLLWAAYSS.

OR BOOOOOMMMMMM, CRRRRUUNCH, KNOCKKNOCKKNOCK

Time for a new 350 you've blown your block.

 

Ok i tried to keep quite but now i cant. Yeah sure there are tons of scientists that are working on making the hydrogen powered cars safe but the first post in this thread was not talking about completely converting to solely hygrogen power with our cars. What we are talking about is a small thing called a BROWNS GAS GENERATOR. Maybe everybody that is complaining that we are gonna blow up ourselves should research this topic a little better. Does it work? I have no idea, but I can promise you running small ampage through a bottle of water and bakingsoda to create "hydrogen gas" which enters the engine through the intake so that it can mix with the fuel and help it to burn more efficiantly is not going to cause a huge explosion. Will it ruin the engine? I have no idea but im pretty sure it would take a very long time for this method to blow the motor. just my

 

I don't think your going to get any kind of EXPLOSION, but a motor is a motor and things wear out, or break. Adding a volitile subsystem is just one more part to have go wrong, and spitting a rod out the side of the block doesn't take much effort if it happens at the (right/wrong) time. Besides I think a GLASS JAR is a poor choice of material on a possibly critical component to the system.

 

Perendev motor anyone?

Madmax, how come you seem so against this? I kind of relate your refusal to give this any credit to not wanting to believe the world is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun. People were adamantly against these theories when they were introduced, yet now, it's common knowledge. I think in 100 years, the same will be true for alternative energy.

Discarding peoples input and ideas because they don't have tons of posts, is not a very good argument either. It doesn't mean we work for the people making these things, and are here to try to make a buck. Should we accuse you of working for the gas companies? Are you trying to squash any theories or potential alternatives to gasoline so you can continue to fatten your pockets? See how it works? No one has any credibility on the internet. Your 8000+ posts here does not mean what you say is gospel. I can refer you to a forum where I have over 12,000 posts. Does that mean what I say is gospel? No. Do I try to stop any ideas some newcomer may have questions about in that forum? No. I suggest that if you think this is a scam or some hair-brained idea, save some of your surfing time, and find other threads to post in.

If I could find someone to finance my experiment, and support my family while doing so, I would love to delve into this full-time. But I work, usually 12 hours a day, and spend my weekends helping the people that have been waiting for me all week. Until I find someone willing to do so, I have to wait until I can put aside the cash and time to test this myself, then I will know for sure if it's viable or not. In theory, I do believe this will increase mileage. Maybe not the small jars, in the original post in this thread, but this technology itself. I suggest the nay-sayer should do the same. Build it, and prove it doesn't work.

I don't get how someone can sit there and say "you're not a scientist and you haven't built one, so it doesn't work." A simple reply to that is "you're not a scientist and you haven't built one, so how do you know it doesn't?"

 

I didn't read through this entire thread, but there was a news segment broadcast on cable tv about a guy in Florida that has a car running on water, they actually showed the car and I beleive the device and the way he did it...he even said he was going to present his finding to congress in hopes to convert from gasoline...this was a couple years ago...I think you can run electricity through water very cheaply to seperate the Hydrogen and use that...I wonder why knowones designed something thats mainstream...

 

If you look up electrolysis, you'll find that it is (at the theoretical most) around 90% efficient. That means that 90% of the energy you put in as electricity, is returned to you in chemical form by H2 and O2.

Therefore, this cannot work. Period. You will never create enough energy to maintain the reaction.

 

Delete

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIz7Z2NeEhY

 

FTW!

 

I'm not an expert at all but isn't the point you're making only going to be accurate when dealing with a system that is using all the energy that is produced? Doesn't the alternator in many cars produce more current than the vehicle requires to operate and keep the battery charged? That energy ends up being wasted. That is the energy that is being used for the electrolysis. The amount of power required would probably about as much as plugging a cellphone into the lighter port. If my point is correct, then all the comments made regarding a perpetual motion machine and the efficiency factor of the hydrogen and electrolysis are moot. All of this being said, I'm not saying I believe this will work, I'm just saying many opinions about why it won't may not be valid. I find this topic very interesting, I hope to hear from someone whether my point is valid or if I'm missing something.

 

if this could be mass produced and was afordable (and mabe practical) my thirdge would be runing off this stuff

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzJZJjo9MNA

 

No kidding? Gee... never knew. [insert sarcasm here]

There is more in this post by the day, and yet where's the results? Still waiting. Go ahead, someone with more than 3 posts that didnt register just to post in this post (thats for you, titan) put it up or shut up. You're so convinced? Put your money where your mouth is.

 

Because from a physcial standpoint, it doesnt work. I see a bunch of people talking about how its not ALL hydrogen that the engine runs on, well... duh. But if you aren't breaking the 100% mark on splitting off the H, you've gained nothing. Like the argument above it was only drawing 1 amp... and I contend that you gained less than 1 amp of power in doing so. Relative mileage doesnt work, my mileage receipts from driving cross country prove that. Just the wind can affect it severely, if its not a controlled condition you dont have a good comparison. I've seen a couple of these things go down in flames in person, this is just another application. I could sit here and explain it chemically or physically or thermodynamically if you want, but there isnt a person in this post with that background (even you "" , so whats the point? Thats all there is above here "Hey, I think it'll work" "It sounds like it'll work" "Its patented" "Hey the place that sells them says it works"
Patents dont have to work. Ask Tesla.
SplitFire says their plugs work.
I think there's life on Mars, what is your proof there isnt?

Silly arguments with no merit.

Anyway the proof is in the pudding, and there's no pudding here aside of a few people who registered on thirdgen to post just IN THIS THREAD, and of course they're defending it. I dunno... you figure out why. I have a pretty good idea. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

I know of a current patented energy experiment I wont go into that worked in theory, worked on a very small scale, and FAILED in production. Scale output was fine, real life output was 50%. Its up to 85 right now, but still short of necessary output and without that its kind of useless. So I could say that I know of a working perpetual motion machine, and in practice I'd be a liar.

And I can post wherever I want. I'm going to continue to post here since the noobs keep arriving to post in this thread... vultures going after suckers if you ask me. I post all over this board telling people not to waste their money on things that arent going to get them what they want, this is one of them. Dont like it, then why dont you stay out?

 

I might not understand how things work under the hood well enough. But like I said in an earlier post, if your alternator is generating more current that your vehicle is using, isn't that energy going to waste? Where is the current coming from that powers my cell phone charger. I've never been under the impression that plugging that in reduces my fuel efficiency in the least. I always thought that the charger is using current from the alternator, and being I can use that charger all day, everyday, when driving with no ill effects, I would think it is using excess current. So why couldn't that current be used to power a small device. Again, I'm not saying this thing works, I really don't know. Usually when something sounds too good to be true it is.

 

If your so worried about the power loss between the extra drain on an alternator, then maybe you should consider modifying the harmonic balancer into a stator. The additional drag on the crank could easily be offset by using a lighterweight flywheel.