Yea I remember you posting earlier now. Ok... so a few here then.

I'm still waiting for someone to ante up and post up. Surely that claimed 2MPG at $4/gallon will make this a wash after a typical 12k mile year and a benefit thereafter... so which of the proponents is gonna jump in? Sounds like they're not too sure....

 

on second thought, now that i've had a chance to smoke a ciggarete.
Owen of ARD in Houston seems to have made his shop available to the 3rdgen crowd.

Whoever thinks they will send me a FREE copy of this publication, then send it to 2505 SW Frwy Houston, Tx, 77098

I have an '84 Z28 Camaro with approx. 288,500 miles on the original LG4 305 ComputerControledQuadrajet, TH700R4 Automatic transmission, 3.23 rearend, 275/50/15 Defender Tires...

I am quite sure that after installing this SUPPOSED gas saving system that it will fall short.

I will sacrafice my motor on Owens Dyno if that is what happens.
I am sure he won't be thrilled but. 3rdgen rules. Put up or Shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Wow. As far as I know, this is nothing more than a thread discussing something questionable. If it is, then I'd like the other users to know I have nothing to gain from looking into this. I'm a carpenter. I frame houses. I don't work for any advertising agencies, or any companies that may be selling this. I just think it has potential. I'm building one now, and may possibly finish it this weekend. I'll post pics and instructions on how I did it (all for free) and we'll go from there.

 

I want a video of a 3rd gen converted and running on this....until that happins its all BS to me.....

 

There's really no conversion. You add this. Fuel is still the main source, this just helps that fuel burn more efficiently.

 

I use to work for www.nationalfuelsaver.com they claim ther device that inducts platinum in a liquid form through the pcv valve creates a more efficiant burn to,22% more to be exact...but Ive never actually seen results....I belive the goverment has us right were they want us,and no new technology will be introduced until they want it to be.....

 

odd

 

this seems kinda fake right now to me. but i would actually like to see myself proved wrong. if this were true gas prices could go down because of supply and demand, and i wouldnt have to pay 3.95 a gal for my 9 mpg car

though i wouldnt put all that junk under the hood of my car...

 

Hey guys, new to this, I ran accross this thread researching this very product, it does seem way to good to be true, but yet keeps me thinking. I have a 99 monte carlo that I am thinking of trying this on. I currently have a 38 mile commute to work, and gas prices are killing me. I am very intersested in any results anyone has from trying this. I noticed the post's stopped a while ago, does anyone have any results?

Thanks

 

I've had this generator finished for about a week now, but it's not going to be the one that I will ultimately test out in the car. I am going to build another, with a different set of plates, and arranged in a different array. But just to get a little something out there... Here's the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jowMOgXhq8

 

ok now i see what u have been doing titan i subscribed to ur videos some time ago and didnt quite get what u where doing with the what videos but this theard has made more seance of it but still not to sure a car would burn this stuff

 

Platinum closed to day at 2,176.30/oz, I believe they use troy ounces.
I don't think any of those gagets that claim to use it contain any of it.

 

I think everyone should be moving on and looking into the "in use" products, run your car on KFC, cheap and smells like chicken. Isn't bio diesel the big thing now?

NJ 3.81/Gal for reg unleaded.

 

Well guys sorry to bust the bubble, but when converting an engine to run on hydrogen u need to get a non rust coating on the engine, cylinder heads, and u need a stainless steel exhaust system from manifolds to tail pipes. I have read the book and its a waist of time and 100 dollars. it will work but the time and money of getting everything prepped is a lot of work and may not be worth it.

 

http://usafastway.com/WATER4GAS

 

Apparently the MAP sensor is the "computer sensor which auto manufactures have installed in all vehicles since 1995 which pegs your MPG not to go up higher then the mfg and oil companys want it to."
"Water4Gas has defeated this supressive limit which your car is supposed to be held under."

I should REALLY trust Water4Gas now that they said something like this

 

If you draw a control volume around the car in question and you only add water to the car and expect to drive around forever - you are wrong. Eventually you will run out of charge on the battery to electrolyze the water. Endothermic reactions (breaking down water into H2 and O) dont sustain themselves no matter how many batteries you add to the car or how you run the alternator. 2nd law of thermodynamics is very clear on this.

If you add gasoline to the control volume as well as water then the claim is that the combustion event is more efficient? Supposedly more energy from the exothermic reaction of the gasoline is used in mechanical work with the hydrogen combusting as well than is lost in separating the hydrogen in the first place.

Considering that the losses in an otto cycle engine running on gas are almost all thermal (waste heat into cooling system, waste heat out of exhaust) and that hydrogen addition to this cycle would only serve to replace some of the gasoline volume with hydrogen, I dont see how it would make the thermal losses any less and improve engine efficiency.

With gasoline, combustion efficiency (how much of the fuel gets burned and contributes to work addition to the crank) is pretty good but I suppose hydrogen could speed the reaction and you could run less timing and the chamber pressure profile on the crank could work on the crank in a more efficient way. But I thought adding hydrogen to gas would lower the octane rating very badly and you would get severe knock?

All in all the bottom line is that you draw your control volume around the car and if what goes in is not exothermic in nature then it does not bring any heat to the cycle. You cant run an engine by raising somethings internal energy state (H2O -> H2, O) and then lowering it (H2, O) and get any gain in energy. 2nd law of thermo says this is impossible.

IF, (big if) you bring an endothermic catalyist (hydrogen in the water you are electrolyzing) as well as an exothermic fuel (gasoline) into your control volume, and the improvement in cycle efficiency nets more work than you spent making the catalyst (hydrogen), then you have something. Only problem is no one has yet said how the otto cycle is so improved by the addition of hydrogen to gasoline.

Of course all my statements above are an exploration of this idea from a thermodynamics standpoint. As madmax has stated many times - go out and build one and provide some sort of proof of concept and you probably wont be arguing about it on a message board. you will be selling the concept. if you really violate some patent - please post a link. That way when you quote that the big oil corps are keeping the idea down we will have a way to check.

 

Quite the topic here. I just saw this pop up on LS1Tech, but not as discussed. For those looking for more legitimate proof, you guys might want to check out these three links (two are large companies that market to truckers, last is a DIY guy).

 

Its not a scam and it doesn't defy any thermodinamic laws. It is a fairly simple process that for some reason took year to become public knowledge. Basically through electrolosis, you break down the 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom that make up h2o or water, and convret them into a separate gas called HHO, or Oxyhydrogen, also known as brown gas or klien gas after the inventor. As most of you know, seprate, oxygen can burn and hydrogen is combustable, however in the form of water, they cannot burn and are not combustable besides an experiment where a man got salt water to burn by passing radio waves through it or something like that. but basically the HHO is created on demand, instead of being stored in a tank, where it would be more dangerous. It is then ran into one of your vacuum lines, into your intake where it is mixed with your normal air/gas mixture. This caused a longer power stroke, much like higher octane gas does as opposed to a quick burst as with low octane. The only biproduct of HHO is water. That is all that results from it so it burns clean. You do not RUN your car on the HHO, I'm sure you could if you wanted to redo your entire car and rebuild it as a hydrogen car or something like that, but that is not the point of HHO. HHo is not meant to run the car, only supplement its fuel consumption. you will still be running a gasoline vehichle, but it would be like you were running much higher grade fuel and it will improve mileage. I don't know about 25%, I will let you know when I get an HHO system installed on my car, I just need to find a weekend where I'm not already doing something else to it lol. but it will improve mileage and I'm not sure about horsepower, but at $4 a gallon driving a V8, I'll take my chances with even a 5% increase in fuel mileage... now if only I could learn to control my lead foot and not drive it like I'm racing at every stop light.....

 

someone should install this on a car with an OBDII so they can hook up a scan gauge, and make a video for proof. My only car is the Fbird, my womans was too expensive to tinker like that, plus we need one working car...

 

Guys this hydro system does increase mpg and its by far nothing new. We made one a year ago out of outlet plates, and a home water filter system and it shows a 2mpg increase on the highway. It was installed on a 2004 sebring and it does work. I called bs on this at first too untill i saw it work. You can add baking soda to get the proper amperage drain from the alt.

 

It's already been done here locally in West Palm Beach by one of the local news stations. They tried it with their news van before and after. The before was getting a lousy 9-10mpg. The after I think climbed up to about 23mpg. That's a 60% increase which is friggin' fantastic. Let me see if I can find the video link and I will post.

 

As promised:

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story...1-939c4bb13a28

 

Anyone know if those tornado things or what ever they r called, they fit in air cleaner and funnel air into carb or tb? also if you really want to save on fuel consider natural gas im sure your city would have pumps, and it is cheaper than propane.

 

Here's the math behind this concept to try to save some of you a little bit of wasted time and money:

There are wild claims made on TV and the internet everyday that try to milk decent, honest people of their hard earned money. It's a rare occurrence that there is any validity to them and it's really hard to tell whats for real, and what's a veiled attempt to separate you from your cash.

In the world of science, there is a concept called "peer review". When you make a claim of an innovation or a discovery, all of your colleagues try to disprove it, whether they believe in it or not. If they are collectively unsuccessful in disproving your claim, then you are credited with the innovation or discovery.

In this case of adding hydrogen, there is well-established math that disproves this concept, as you will see below. The bottom line is that in EVERY step of this process, energy is lost to friction and heat that can not be recovered.

First, taking a step back to clear up a popular misconception in this thread, an alternator does not generate electricity that is not used. The greater the electrical load on the alternator (i.e. how much electrical power the rest of the car requires), the greater the mechanical load it puts on the engine. You can see this concept yourself very easily with an alternator removed from a car and a headlamp. By hand, spin the pulley on the alternator with and without the headlamp connected to it. You'll see that it's easy to spin the pulley with no demand for electricity, but very difficult to with the headlamp connected.

Now, working backwards in the process for ease of explanation, let's start with the actual hydrolysis reaction that separates the water molecule and releases the hydrogen. The efficiency of the electrolysis is very poor, meaning that only a portion of the electrical energy consumed in the reaction remains in the chemical energy of the hydrogen. The practical efficiency for this reaction in a laboratory is 50%-70%.

Next, factor in that alternators are typically around 55% efficient. That means that for every watt of electrical power generated by the alternator, another watt of energy is lost to heat, and nearly two watts of mechanical energy have been spent from the engine. Granted that high-efficiency alternators are available, but even they are only around 70% efficient.

Thirdly, factor in where the kinetic (mechanical) energy is coming from to generate the electricity for the electrolysis in the first place. You car engine is simply a mechanism to convert the chemical energy from gasoline into mechanical energy in your drivetrain. Ever notice that your engine generates heat when it's running? A lot of it? This is because internal combustion engines are terribly inefficient at converting the chemical energy in gasoline into kinetic energy, but is wonderfully efficient at converting chemical energy to heat energy. A stock engine will be around 20% efficient, while a highly-tuned race engine may approach 30% overall efficiency.

Now that we have all of this in front of us, let's calculate how much of the original chemical energy from the gasoline is left in the hydrogen in a *best* case scenario:

Best case (laboratory): Chemical energy in gasoline x 30% (engine) x 70% (alternator) x 70% (electrolysis) = Chemical energy in hydrogen released = 14.7% overall efficiency

Real-world: Chemical energy in gasoline x 20% (engine) x 55% (alternator) x 50% (electrolysis) = Chemical energy in bydrogen released = 5.5% overall efficiency

-OR- it takes 6.8 times the amount of energy to release the hydrogen than the hydrogen contains in best-case *laboratory* conditions, and 20 times the amount in real-world conditions.

Ok, now I can hear the next (nonsensical) argument... "But the hydrogen is making the fuel burn more efficiently, not burning itself." Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say the hydrogen makes the fuel burn 100% efficiently and there is no heat generated by the engine. Replace engine efficiency in the equation with 100%, and see what you get.

 

Did you care to check out my links, Pyroviking? Two of them are large companies, one of which is in Canada, and installs these units in semi trucks. They say that those trucks will gain an average of 8-12% in fuel economy while boosting power. They are also the first company in Canada to receive Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) recognition, which signifies that their product does what it is supposed to do (lower emissions and produce more power). For a publicly traded company to be doing this successfully tells me there is something valid about the process.

Call it nonsensical, but it is a known fact that hydrogen and oxygen rapidly burn by themselves, and therefore when you inject it into the engine and mix it with the fuel, you get a flash burn from the hydrogen/oxygen and therefore an increased rate of burn of the fuel as a whole, leading to less wasted fuel sent out the exhaust. When done right, results suggest that this is more than enough increase in power to overcome the loss required to generate the gas in the first place.

When I first started looking at this, I came across a few questionable websites (like most of you), which offered manuals on how to do it for a price and didn't really give out any information of value. The information is out there on how to do it for free if you search for it long enough. I linked to the Smacks booster in my first post on this page (here it is again), and there is a PDF on that website that shows how to go about building one.

The guy also has a YouTube channel that shows some videos (in a 7-8 part series) on the booster, plus there are several active Yahoo groups on the subject:

-Watercar
-hydroxy

So for those who have the time to build one, check out those resources.

 

larger vehicles have an easier time producing more electricity. vans and semi's would seem to be more suited to this role?

Edit: Why doesn't someone pick one of these up and use it stand-alone. determine the amount of energy it requires to function and measure the amount of hydrogen it creates? It'd require some fancy measurement devices BUT, i'm sure someone knows an enthusiast or someone who works in a lab/factory? I know no-one...

 

Maybe you'd like to explain how you get more energy from a reaction than you put in.

 

Wow, somewhere above i read "HHO gas" in the real world, we call a molecule of HHO, H2O also known as water.

But yea, the entire concept of producing the hydrogen from a gas engine powered generator to save money on gas is rediculous. I laugh in any who believe it's general direction.

insteading of grasping for make believe solutions to gas prices, why not just consider what actually works. Drive less, drive slower, or go electric.

There's a reason why nobody with even half a brain uses gasoline to generate electricity for electrolisis of water. It's stupid. The only major entity that uses hydrogen power is Iceland. They get their power for free (geothermal), so it's feasible for them. If you dont get your power for free, then you dont use hydrogen power, just about anything else makes more sense.

 

we need real proof, read the news thing. they fill the tank and blah blah blah... I don't know, I want to see more.

Edit: It has to be under controlled conditions. not every day driving. and with properly calibrated gauges. Like they do for medications...

 

you dont need proof. It's simple physics. You are using energy from the gasoline engine that would normally be used to propell you to separate water, then you are trying to reclaim that energy by recombining hydrogen and oxygen during combustion. If that requires any more explanation of why you wont come out losing energy then nothing is going to convince you. Plain and simple. It really doesn't get any more obvious than that.

 

I agree, I myself would like to see more concrete evidence that it works (having it in working on my own car would be the evidence), but I currently do not have the time to build one, so I have nothing at the moment. Maybe I should have reworded my above post when I said:

to
so as to not make any confusing claims. My apologies.

You guys are right in that water does not spontaneously form hydrogen and oxygen; it takes energy to separate water into it's elements (H2 & O2), and that energy is released again when the elements combine to form water (an explosion, for example). So you don't gain any direct energy from the creation and subsequent collapse of H2 & O2 into water. My guess would be that the explosion of hydrogen/oxygen gas in the cylinder causes the rest of the gasoline that otherwise wouldn't be burnt to burn more completely, and that is where your extra power comes from.

I merely posted in this thread because someone was asking about it, and I thought it would be nice to share some links for people to go check it out on their own.

 

Those that dont see the reality of it are just hopeful and uninformed. Water doesnt carry any free energy in its normal state, its stable. Its not like plutonium or gasoline or whatever that has free energy just waiting to be released. Its totally inert and to get it to where you can get power from the recombination... takes more splitting it apart than it yields.

 

What we're trying to tell you is that it's not going to be possible to gain any additional horsepower, because you used more than it could help produce by producing the hydrogen and oxygen. All you could hope to do is get close to what you would otherwise have if you never bothered trying electrolysis.

On an additional note. Unburnt fuel is extremely easy to remedy. Fix your car. Get the right timing down, the right spark plug gap, the right coil/plugs, get your car at the right operating temperature, and make sure your injectors are spraying a fine mist/fog. All this voodoo you're trying to do with electrolysis could be completely surpassed by simple maintenance. And at least by doing that, you actually have a chance at not wasting anymore energy than you already are.

 

he is right about the "unburnt" fuel, plus, there are other things that can be done to help it burn better?
On a side note, arn't pistons all different shapes because some "make it burn more completely?"

 

Just wanted everyone to know that HHO is reall but only a few real players in the Market. You can even buy a rocket in the toy section that works on HHO. Have to have really good batteries for it to work well. Here is an article today on HHO.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-99...l?tag=nefd.top

http://www.hydrorunner.com/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007...gen_rocket.php

 

IMHO Opinion you could spend your money better and see better fuel mileage by increasing the efficiency of your vehicle. If you factor in the heat loss, the friction loss, the effect of drag on the speed of the vehicle, your electrolysis effect is negligible.

Yes, its so small that you probably would not even notice the difference. You are talking about inputting a small amount of extra fuel into the mix. Its very easy to spray more fuel, it is more difficult to add extra air (thereby increasing the volumetric efficiency of the engine).

You may say that by using water (as an electrolysis project) you also add oxygen, which maybe true. Nitrous oxide is a good example of how to add oxygen and also get more power out of the available fuel. Just think how much actual gas you have to inject of NO to get more power. Not only that, NO also has a cooling effect which also helps produce more power.

All I am saying is that the boost in fuel mileage and combustion efficiency is going to be so small you probably would not be able to measure it. Keep the ideas coming though, idea generation often leads to a really good idea that can be expounded upon and made to work with real results!

To those saying that you can get more energy out of the equation after the reaction: the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but if you have found the link to creating free energy and using it in the combustion process, I would like to know how!

The combustion process creates heat, which is a Q out : i.e. a heat loss. Now if you could take that heat and create a way of cycling it back into the system as a steam propulsion that would really be something.

 

Someone up there claimed that hydrogen and oxygen burn readily. I would just like to clarify, oxygen doesn't burn. It enables burning.

And I have a friend who is trying to sell me on his brilliant idea that I'm sure he got off of one of these websites for $50.

Yes. You can do it. Yes, you can burn hydrogen in your car. No, it's not near efficient unless you spend a LOT of money on expensive test and calibration equipment, and by that time, you'd have to save ten thousand or so gallons of gas to make the project pay for itself.

If you want free power and mileage, I have an invention for you. It's miraculous, but it dates all the way back to 1905! They've been used in ships, planes, and cars! Just hook up a turbine-driven forced-induction compressor! It'll increase your power and give you a much better mileage than a car at the same power level without one! The amazing part? They run off of EXHAUST gas! Something you just push out the tailpipe!

 

Wow. I didn't realize Turbo was over 100 years old.

 

Spoilsport. :P

 

Another good idea is drafting. Drafting while driving on the highway is a proven method to reduce your fuel consumption thanks to the guy in front of you breaking up the wind resistance. Anyone thinking of using the electrolysis method should skip that and draft. Draft behind everyone, especially cops. They love helping a fellow driver out in reducing gas usage.

 

Drafting cops

Great point on the drafting... I try to draft when I need to drive my diesel Excursion. I typically get 18.5-19 hwy, but if a sit behind an RV or a big rig, I can get 27 mpg hwy @60-65 mph. Takes a little bit longer to get places... but at $220/tank, I don't mind.

 

I followed a cop doin 20mph over, without his lights on, there was a car infront of me doing the same thing. Drafting can be dangerous, close quarters with the *** of the vehicle infront of you.

Might as well wax your car real good and
"rub it down with cheetah blood - futurama"

 

Here's the math and physics of it (that I posted on FRRAX last week at http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/index.php?showtopic=11693). I was curious, so I did the energy balance, and came up with roughly 130,000 watts needed to generate enough hydrogen from water to get a 10% gain in mileage for a 15 mpg vehicle.

The short version is that you can't break the laws of physics. It takes energy to split water into H2's and 02's, and since nothing is ever 100% efficient, you will *always* end up at a loss.

The idea is to split water (2*H2O = 2 H2 + 02, about 80-90% efficient according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...ter#Efficiency) through electrolysis and then recombine it again?!! How can that possibly generate energy, when nothing is ever 100% efficient.

If a gallon of gas has 112,000 BTU, and your fuel rate at cruise is 15mpg @ 60 mph, that's 4 gallons per hour, or 448 kBTU's. To increase the mileage by 10%, you need to generate 45 kBTU's of h2 per hour, or 192 moles (or grams, if a mole equals a gram) per hour. Adding 96 moles of 02 at 32 grams/mole, gives you 3072 grams of 02.
192+3072=3264 kg (3.264 Liters) of water/hr needed to electolyze to make enough h2 needed to supplement 10% of the gasoline

If you need 4 electrons to split a water atom into 2 h2's and one o2, need 96 moles of water/hr, then you need 384 moles of electrons/hr, or 2.3E26 electrons. Since it's 1.6E-19 electrons per coulomb, you need 3.68E7 coulombs/hr.

An Amp-Hour is 3600 coulombs, so you'll need 10,214 AH to feed the electrolysis reaction.

A volt is 1 joule per coulomb. With a 12.6 volt battery, you'll need 3.68E7 coulombs/hr * 12.6 Joules/coulomb = 4.63E8 Joules/hr
Since a watt is 1 joule/sec, that works out to be 128,700 Watts.

That's a pretty damn big power draw on the alternator!

Much better to just accept the 35% loss in burning gasoline, than add another 2 steps with their inefficiencies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

I supposed I could have saved a bit of time calc'ing formulas if I just converted the 45,000 BTU's needed for a 10% gain in mileage * 1055 into Joules and divided by 3600 into Watt/hr (which is 13,129 Watts/hr, so I'm off by a factor of ten with the crazy calcs above, which may either be a mistake, or somehow show the inefficiency if it's correct). Regardless, 13,000 Watts is a pretty big load too...

Maybe if you used solar cells to charge a battery for the water electrolysis!

 

You have math, physics, and practicality all working against this idea being anything above stupid, along with most other "OMG, i can't believe none of these multi-national corporations haven't figured out this really cheap easy to do thing to gain all this mileage/performance that would obviously give them an edge over their competition and their department of engineers were too busy thinking of ever increasingly complex engines to give any thought to this incredibly simple and functionally perfect" ideas.

If you want to save on mileage, do what hyper-milers do and get everyone around you pissed the hell off for driving so slow. You'll save tons of mileage and it'll probably take a while before someone throws a brick at your car.

If you want to spend a little money, start looking into alternative fuels. Though that's rapidly becoming less of a monetary advantage.

If you want to solve the problem and stop dicking around, stick a high performance AC or DC electric system in there and be done with it.


There's a difference between a thing the car companies aren't doing that would save the consumer money bceause it loses them money, and one that people think car companies dont do out of some secret conspiracy to keep people buying oil. Usually, if it removes complexity from the car, car companies dont like it, they make a vast amount of money on maintenance. Adding devices, they like. it's one more thing to break. That's why this device could be instantly seen for what it is, crap.

 

There are ---- a few claims that people consider very solid evidence that this does work.

I believe it doesn't according to the theories given. I'm a mechanical engineer, but that doesn't mean i catch every detail. My focus isn't in thermo or chem.

The "HHO" and combustion of seems impractical.

However, i have heard or attempts to add steam to combustion. Maybe the actual benefit seen here is from the addition of metered amounts of steam vapors (within the vapor dome for thermo buffs) that become superheated and then expand violently and rapidly in the same way a steam engine is driven.
The question I would pose is:
can a metered amount of steam (created through this less than practical process) be added in such a way that the energy lost during a combustion cycle [due to displacement of air/fuel volume by steam and the energy used to create the steam] be low enough that the heat energy absorbed by the water and converted to mechanical energy as it becomes superheated (and is thus expanded) is greater?

That sentence got kinda complicated cause I'm trying to look at from a mathematical view point. so basically, one more time:

[energy used in production of steam] + [energy lost from displacement of air/fuel by steam] < [Heat energy converted to mechanical energy through super-heating of steam] ???

I was thinkin about this and figure there may ALSO be some energy lost (or gained) due heat transfer to the water from the exhaust gases if the expansion energy of the exhaust gases per btu added is greater than that of the steam.

Keep in mind also that most engines are not volumetrically efficient (i may be using this term wrong, but what i mean is that they do not completely fill the combustion chamber with stoichiometric air/fuel) so there may be some portion of volume that could be taken up by steam and actually bring the mixture closer to being stoichiometric.

Any inputs? Please don't flame this. I'm not posting it as fact, I'm looking for clarification and validation.

 

I've been using water to get better mileage and performance for years on my car, this is nothing new. It's called a Moroso Cool Can.

 

Your alternator is never generating more current than needed. That would result in overcharge and your battery would boil over and probably melt all kinds of crap with sulfuric acid.

Alternators use inductance to control how much current to generate, this in turn changes how easy it is to turn the alternator pully. With high load being the hardest to turn, low load being the easiest.

EDIT: thus the energy draw of the alternator is not constant, which completely invalidates any claims of the "car running on water" crowd.

 

well i got a friend who has the 100 page book on it, (someone at his work copied it and gave it to him).....we are going to build one and try it out on his honda....i will post honnest results on what i find out when we do it, im not expecting much if anything but we will have to see