Water as Fuel / HHO Technology [Merged Threads]

[artnesmith]

I would like to point out that wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.

Aside from posts or comments from users, none of the content can be changed except by the webmaster unless someone hacks the site, same as any website. However, I was only using this to point out the oxygen content of the air which remains a constant from other sources. Rounding up to 21% oxygen is a common practice.

[ghosthunter]

Aside from posts or comments from users, none of the content can be changed except by the webmaster unless someone hacks the site, same as any website. However, I was only using this to point out the oxygen content of the air which remains a constant from other sources. Rounding up to 21% oxygen is a common practice.

I'm sorry but I beg to differ because I just modified the wiki entry you used as a basis of your oxygen percentage. No hacking needed.

As I mentioned earlier, wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.

[dvldoc]

Good article. Like I've been saying, most of the guys selling these are not credible. Does anyone here on this thread actually sell these?

Another good point not touched upon in this article, is the high cost to purchase of some devices. If a car saves 300 dollars in fuel, just for an example, but spends 1,500 dollars, hardly worth the effort.

Can you name one single one that is? It's already been proven not to work as advertised so how can there be any credible people that sell , build or insist on blogging none stop about it?

I know for a fact that these guys can't answer any hard questions or provide any proof, My Business partner attended SEMA this year and put it too just one of these guys and he just angry and walked away because he got embarrassed in front of a crowd. Could not provide a single piece of proof the kits worked as he stated.

All these are pure snake oil.

Please provide proof of one that is not. What other project do people work on that has been proven not to work?

[artnesmith]

I'm sorry but I beg to differ because I just modified the wiki entry you used as a basis of your oxygen percentage. No hacking needed.

As I mentioned earlier, wikipedia entries aren't really acceptable as a reference source because entries can easily be altered/manipulated by anyone.

Why did you post this? Clearly it has not been modified nor do you have permission (password-login-etc.) to make these changes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

Regardless of whether you agree with the information on this particular page or anything I post in the HHO bashing thread, this information is a constant you find in other sources such as in your local library. I was pointing out inaccurate information. You were being intentionally deceptive. I wonder why?

[dvldoc]

Bashing thread, LMAO, you have made the choice to be childess and not be able to answer any hard questions.

Can you name one legitimate company that sells these kits. (YES or NO)

Can you show any legitimate test that show these systems save any fuel (YES or NO)

Can you show proof the EPA testing procedures that have debunked all HHO claims of fuel saving are wrong (YES or NO) I even provided you with the testing procedures which you choice to ignore just because I post them.

You can answer them so you just act like the question is not ask yes you (artnesmith) You have provided nothing but I play with voltage and amps and make bubble to this entire thread. Just like every other HHO thread.


Can you justify why anyone should be looking into this a a means to save fuel when you cannot even show it works, and EPA testing has been done showing it does not.

Is not the whole point of the thread to show that the topic actually works.


Lets remind you artesmith what the orignial thread was about from the first post.

Hi guys,

I know there was a thread regarding this but it has been closed down.

While I was surfing the net, I came accross this thing:

http://water4gas-ph.com/

I'd like to ask you guys to give an opinion about what they offer. Is it real? Is it a scam?

We have proven the case that it's a scam?

[SIZE=7]YES WE HAVE!

[SIZE=2]Have you provide one piece of proof other wise?

[SIZE=7]NO!

[SIZE=2]You choose to ignore all fact about the impident amount of gas your kits produce with how much air and fuel a vehicle actually uses.

When confronted by facts that you now are right you choice to just ignore them.

Point in fact and I will use someone elses and not just mine.

You got OWNED on all these facts and you have no answer.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

Liters of hydrogen doesn't equate to liters of gas. Unless you specify that the energy density of atmospheric hydrogen, which is what you're producing, since your system is unpressurized, is 1/3000th that of gasoline.

Yup. 1 liter of gasoline = 3000 liters of hydrogen gas.

So... 2 liters a minute... 120 liters an hour... 1/9th of that is hydrogen (we don't need extra oxygen, remember?) equivalent to... about 4 milliliters of gasoline. That's to offset how much of the 1000 milliliters (or more... much more for engines above 1.6 liters) of gasoline consumed per hour in a typical automobile? That's 0.4% And if we're looking at it as an octane booster... given that Hydrogen has an effective octane of 130... then that 0.4% is equivalent to +0.5 RON. Still not effective, either as a fuel or as an octane booster.

That's why I said mass is the only factor that counts. And the amount of water consumed will point you directly towards the mass of hydrogen produced... which will point you to how much gasoline usage you can offset with the system.

Prove this wrong!!!


Here is your totaly ignorant statement about testing of fuel saving devices.

Rarely do they use a dynomometer due to the slight or non existent power improvements some devices claim such as the fuel line magnets. They instead take a test group of cars and let the drivers go about their daily commute and get a baseline. Then they add the device to be tested to half of the cars, and a fake device on the other half. None of the drivers are aware of whether their car has the legitimate device or the fake. They compare mileage increases to determine if the group with the actual device got better mileage than the group without. If you read the information you'll notice the cars without the device also get better mileage! That has to be the placebo effect causing drivers to assume they have the device installed and somehow drive differently.

Hmmm WRONG!

I posted exactly how they are tested and you choose to just ignore it. I'll put it again so you can see just how totally wrong you are. Feel free to look up the information yourself which is what you should have done to begin with.

Please tell us the EPA is doing it wrong!!!

Here's how real fuel economy is checked by the EPA.


(1) Degree of improvement in fuel economy
(2) Effect on exhaust emissions
(3) Vehicle applicability
(b) The Administrator may determine that, in certain cases, tests using engine dynamometers are adequate for determining the effect of a device. Examples of such cases are given below.


(1) Long-term effects. In some cases, it may be necessary for the engine to operate for several thousand miles before the effectiveness can be adequately measured. In such cases an engine dynamometer will permit a less expensive and better controlled durability and economy test than one in which a vehicle must be driven on a durability route and then tested on a chassis dynamometer or test track.


(2) Durability requirements. Aspects of engine durability can be efficiently determined using specialized engine testing rather than through durability mileage accumulation in a vehicle. A number of standard engine tests are presently used which can be incorporated into this requirement.


(c) When in the judgment of the Administrator a device cannot satisfactorily be evaluated using either dynamometer or track versions of the City Fuel Economy Test and the Highway Fuel Economy Test, the Administrator will select or design other procedures.


The Administrator will choose a test procedure or procedures from various engine dynamometer durability test procedures used by research organizations in government, the oil industry, engine manufacturing companies, and independent laboratories.
Driveability tests.

Driveability assessment (at normal ambient temperatures) of the baseline configuration, of the adjusted configuration (if required by the Administrator), and of the fully retrofitted configuration may be conducted at zero device-miles for all vehicles included in the durability fleet, and at approximately zero device-miles at low ambient temperatures (0 °F–20 °F). Driveability evaluation procedures will be provided by the Administrator when necessary.
Performance tests.

The effect of a device on a vehicle's performance will be determined by performing wide-open-throttle 0 to 60 mph acceleration tests (at normal ambient temperatures) on the baseline vehicle configuration, on the adjusted configuration (if required), and on the fully retrofitted configuration. Tests will be conducted on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track, with appropriate speed-time measuring equipment, on as many vehicles as determined to be necessary.



Track test procedures.
(a) Cases may arise where it will be necessary to evaluate the fuel economy effects of a retrofit device on a test track, because the effect of the device cannot be adequately tested using the chassis dynamometer procedures. (An obvious example is a device that changes the aerodynamic drag of the test vehicle.) In such cases, testing will be performed on a dry, level, smooth-surfaced test track for such dimensions that the speeds required by the city and highway fuel economy tests may be safely achieved.


(1) Because aerodynamic drag is not a linear function of velocity, it will be necessary to limit testing to times when the wind velocity is less than 5 mph, with gusts less than 10 mph.


(2) Testing will also be limited to ambient temperatures between 60° and 90 °F, and to times when the ambient temperature remains reasonably constant during individual tests. Temperature differences between tests of baseline and retrofit configurations will also be minimized.


(3) Exhaust emissions will not be measured during track testing.
(4) Fuel economy of a vehicle running on a track will be measured using either a volumetric or gravimetric procedure approved by the Administrator.


(5) Vehicle speed and distance will be measured with a “fifth wheel” type of device. Suitable apparatus will be used to generate a permanent record (strip chart recorder, etc.) of the vehicle speed versus time.


(b) City fuel economy test. Although essentially the same procedures will be used for track testing as for dynamometer testing, some modifications will be necessary to insure safe operation of the test vehicle and to adjust to the requirements of track testing.


(1) An assistant to the driver will be necessary to steer the vehicle, so that the driver will not be distracted from following the speed-time schedules used in the Federal test procedure.


(2) The test vehicle will be preconditioned within the same time constraints given in §610.43(a)(1)(ii). Preconditioning may take place either on the track or on a dynamometer. The 12-hour soak after preconditioning will take place in an area where the ambient temperature will remain within the 60° to 90 °F range, indoors, if necessary.


(3) The vehicle will be transported to the test track without being started. If the distance from soak area to track is no greater than one-quarter mile, then the vehicle may be pushed or towed to the track. Otherwise the vehicle must be transported by truck or trailer.


(4) Fuel economy will be determined by either a gravimetric or volumetric method.


(c) Highway fuel economy test. The highway test will follow the city fuel economy test in the same manner as in dynamometer tests (§610.43(b)). Fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.


(d) Steady state tests. Steady state tests on the track will be run in the same manner as on the dynamometer except that fuel economy will be measured by gravimetric or volumetric methods.

I'm pretty sure your also about to get OWNED again by Ghosthunter for you little comment on him being dishonest.


[SIZE=7][SIZE=2][SIZE=7][SIZE=2]
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE]

[artnesmith]

Bashing thread, LMAO, you have made the choice to be childess and not be able to answer any hard questions.

No such word in the English language!

[dvldoc]

No such word in the English language!

After all that said all you can come back with is a typing error of childish. Now that is truly pathetic.

You prove my point of having nothing to add because you still have not added anything and cannot answer any questions.

Do i need to repeat the post for you. Simply ignoring things just make you look foolish, your the one supporting something that by all forms of actually scientific testing has been proven not to work. You cannot provide any evidence to the contrary.

So typical of the HHO cult, and that's what it is.

CULT

great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad

HHO does not make your vehicle get better fuel economy PERIOD!

And you can't prove otherwise. We can ask until we are bleeding from the finger tips o here or every other forum on the planet. The results are the same.

YOU GOT NOTHING BUT TESTIMONIALS, YOUTUBE VIDEOS, BAD SCIENCE, SCAM ARTIST,DECEPTIVE MARKETING, FALSE ADVERTISING, NOT ONE UNIVERSITY OR GOVERNMENT STUDY, INDEPENDENT LAB STUDY, EPA, OR CIVILIAN TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS.

HHO is intellectually and scientificaly bankrupt on any facts or evidence of it's performance in a internal combustion engine.

Like I said a CULT.

[A121]

For more reference on Faraday's Law see this link:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Faradays_law.aspx

Most information on Michael Faraday's Law tend to revolve around his laws of induction for magnetism which can be confusing for those trying to understand the big picture. Basically, going by Faraday's Law, you just cannot get out more than you put in something. Many have claimed "overunity" or getting out more than they put in, but nothing yet documented. There are some electromagnetic coils being tested now for validity that tend to show overunity, but nothing verified at this time. According to Faraday you cannot use one BTU of gasoline to generate more than one BTU of production. There would always be a loss unless you are using geothermal, nuclear or gravity for example.

So Faraday's Law could apply to electric cars, for just one example, that even if they turn generators while driving, the generators will not produce as much power as is consumed by the electric motors meaning eventually the batteries will run down. In our case, the gasoline used to generator one watt is more than the energy value of the hydrogen we produce.

If you take our formula, you'll notice there are values already established to evaluate the amount of energy necessary to produce one watt. Then this is figured in to the value in BTUs of hydrogen we produce. If we break even, or unity, then we get 100% efficiency. Some people on the Internet show exaggerated figures on HHO production and amps. When you figure this up according to Faraday's Law you have more than 100% efficiency or overunity. If you have overunity, then this means you gain or run ahead the more you use or produce. If so, then why in the world would you ever need a gas tank? Clearly they are exaggerating, dishonest or just unable to measure volumes and amps properly.

Our formula 7744 X 100 X HHO produced in one minute divided by (Watts X 60 seconds) is taking the energy necessary to make the hydrogen (Watts X test period in seconds) and dividing that into the value of the HHO produced. So basically we are taking a standard measure of energy necessary to produce electricity compared to the energy value of the hydrogen produced in BTUs of energy. Faraday's Law can be applied to many other technologies including electric motors and hydrogen fuel cells that turn hydrogen into electricity. You just need to have the energy value of what you make compared to the energy value of what was consumed to make that volume.

The reason most formulas on the Internet take the BTU value of hydrogen by weight, then transfered to volume at sea level is because the volume of a gas at sea level will be less than the same weight of that gas at much higher altitude. I could take a cell making 1 liter per minute in Manila (sea level) and take it to Mexico City (more than 2 kilometers above sea level) and the same volume of hydrogen will occupy more space making it appear to be larger. So guys testing their HHO generators at high altitude may appear to be more efficient than the rest of us, but actually just making the same amount of gas in mass/weight even if it is more in volume.

This is why when you over run a HHO generator your mileage goes down. If run at lower amps, this depends on the engine size and whether diesel of gasoline fueled, you tend to be within the "flywheel effect" of that engine. This is the area where the engine's momentum carries it, to a point. If you pass this area mileage will drop as you must burn more fuel to push the extra amperage. More HHO does not equate to better mileage if amps run away beyond the engine's ability to carry those amps. I don't remember seeing this on the Internet, but it's a factor you will run into if you tinker around with different strengths of electrolyte, especially on small engines.

Sir, I think you mixed up the laws of Faraday. The one you just told here is that if you have changing magnetic flux, emf will be produced which cannot be related to what you are talking about.

However, there is also Faraday's law for electrolysis.
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...araday.php#law

How does your equation from page 14 derived from Faraday's law of electrolysis?

[artnesmith]

Sir, I think you mixed up the laws of Faraday. The one you just told here is that if you have changing magnetic flux, emf will be produced which cannot be related to what you are talking about.

However, there is also Faraday's law for electrolysis.
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genche...araday.php#law

How does your equation from page 14 derived from Faraday's law of electrolysis?

I believe I did mention most of the information on Faraday's Law on the Internet deals with the laws of magnetism or electric motor efficiency. However, if you research this further you will find the premise for Faraday's Law, as used by most every industry, has been applied in the manner I specified above. In other words, we take the energy used compared to the energy produced to measure efficiency and credit the premise to Faraday, since he first provide this idea back in the 1830s. Maybe we shouldn't call it Faraday's Law? I don't know, but this is what everyone refers to even if they are figuring the efficiency of batteries, for just one of many possible examples.

[A121]

I believe I did mention most of the information on Faraday's Law on the Internet deals with the laws of magnetism or electric motor efficiency. However, if you research this further you will find the premise for Faraday's Law, as used by most every industry, has been applied in the manner I specified above. In other words, we take the energy used compared to the energy produced to measure efficiency and credit the premise to Faraday, since he first provide this idea back in the 1830s. Maybe we shouldn't call it Faraday's Law? I don't know, but this is what everyone refers to even if they are figuring the efficiency of batteries, for just one of many possible examples.

Sir, I think we're not talking about the same thing. Both laws were observed by Faraday but deal with different phenomena. The one you are talking about relates to magnetism (how a change in flux produces emf) while the equation that one should be using for "HHO" production should be the Faraday's law of electrolysis. I would just like to know how did you come up with "7744 X 100 X HHO" mathematically?

[artnesmith]

Sir, I think we're not talking about the same thing. Both laws were observed by Faraday but deal with different phenomena. The one you are talking about relates to magnetism (how a change in flux produces emf) while the equation that one should be using for "HHO" production should be the Faraday's law of electrolysis. I would just like to know how did you come up with "7744 X 100 X HHO" mathematically?

OK, I just misunderstood your question. Whether we attribute this formula to Faraday or just the concept, let me break down part of it for you. Here it is in basic form:
First, taking the efficiency percent formula the first part with the watts figured is a standard used to compute the amount of energy necessary to produce the electricity. This is to assume that no matter if alternator or generator or whether powered by a diesel or gasoline engine, the same amount of energy is required to produce this current. This is compared to the BTU value of the hydrogen as follows:
7744 = BTU value of one milliliter of hydrogen (remember, only 2/3 of this volume is actually hydrogen in our case)

X 100 to equal one liter

7744 X 100 X volume in liters per minute of production to get the correct total value in energy per minute of production, our test period in this formula.

This is divided by the value of the energy consumed to generate the electricity (volts X amps X test period in seconds which is 60 for this formula)

7744 X 100 X HHO volume of production in one minute or 60 seconds divided by (amps X volts X 60)

More detailed information on this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/delvis11#p/u/32/fvfD2Sk86EU

First time I ever heard of computing "Faraday's Law" to figure loss in efficiency through a system was at a company I worked for that built 100-300 ton dump trucks for copper or coal mines. These used diesel engines to turn generators which then power electric motors in the wheels to propel the truck forward much like a diesel train. Of course, once the diesel engines turn the generators then power the electric motors there is a loss of efficiency. They had a formula to figure this depending on the size of the electric motors and output of the generators. At the time I wondered why they used electric motors to propel these trucks if there is a loss of efficiency? Of course, there always is a good reason and in this case the tremendous weight to be moved presented transmission problems for the diesel engines, so the way the electric motors applied torque to the wheels made this transition of power to the load better. I believe these trucks would only achieve a top speed of 45 miles per hour, which is impressive considering the size and load being moved.

I've been told, and this is only hearsay, but the diesel trains use a system where the electric motors apply torque at low speeds, but once the load is moving the load is shifted to a more direct drive from the diesel engines which keeps efficiency higher. I always found it hard to believe those locomotives could take such heavy loads great distances on electric motors alone.

I hope this clears this up for you. The video goes into more detail about spotting gross exaggerations posted on the Internet about production of HHO. Clearly some people exaggerate or are very inept in how they measure performance of electrolysis cells they are selling or testing. About 6 months ago I was showing that my smacks cell got more efficient as amps increase. I even showed some of these primitive dinosaurs getting more than 60% efficiency in my notes. But as luck has it I was making a big mistake in amp readings. My ammeter was a direct in the circuit ammeter and internal resistance inside the unit caused the readings to be low compared to what was accurate. I got accurate readings below 10 amps, but clearly wrong past 10 amps to the maximum of 20 amps this ammeter supposedly would read. Once I got a better ammeter I noticed the discrepancy and had to run all the tests over. Everything 8 amps and below were dead on at about 40% efficient. But the higher amp runs dropped to a more accurate 40% from the previous faulty runs showing 60%. Disappointing, but a learning experience. I also learned that cell efficiency tends to be more on a straight line over a long range of amperage.

[terran_ghost]

http://www.gas4free.com/?hop=henis

[oliver1013]

Hehehe mukhang masaya tong thread na to ah

[terran_ghost]

di ko alam kung totoo itong site na ito sana ma ipromote ito sa pinas?? eto kaya ung imbensyon ng kababayan nating naka imbento ng kotseng pinapatakbo ng tubig??di kaya naibenta na nya sa ibang bansa ung imbensyon nya?? kung totoo man ito patay ang business ng mga dambuhalang kumpanya ng langis na yan....

[terran_ghost]

pwede naman tlga maimbento itong kotse na ang gasolina ay tubig kc may hydrogen ang tubig i recall my chemistry class nung high school H2O....ang Hydrogen ay combustiable....kung ang US nga nakagawa ng Hydrogen Bomb...kaya ung component na hydrogen sa tubig ay pwedeng makapag patakbo ng makina natin at friendly sa environment natin.....

[A121]

oh no! this again????

[rex31angel]

kung pde y not po.. mas maganda kng gnun..peo sna hindi maapek2han ung performance ng auto..XD

[niky]

Thousands upon thousands of "inventors" have "invented" the hydro-gas / HHO / whatever system for cars, all the way back to the 60's and 70's. None have so far been proven to work. If they did, there's bound to be some big corporation or businessman who would invest in it.

Oh... wait... there are... and after every investment... the whole thing ends in a case of estafa...

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquire...ars-for-estafa

Note... that it was finally a Taiwanese businessman who fell for his scam. Most of us here who have seen it and have seen the car running in public (smell that good old gasoline exhaust) knew better than to believe his claims.

-

After years of hearing the "HHO" argument... the only solid evidence we have are dyno-tests by impartial observers that show that these systems don't work except to lower power by creating extra current draw on the alternator.

The "HHO" guys have nothing. Now, if other companies can spend a few hundred dollars to dyno-test their products to show gains in power or economy:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...html?series=91

Why can't the HHO guys do the same?

pwede naman tlga maimbento itong kotse na ang gasolina ay tubig kc may hydrogen ang tubig i recall my chemistry class nung high school H2O....ang Hydrogen ay combustiable....kung ang US nga nakagawa ng Hydrogen Bomb...kaya ung component na hydrogen sa tubig ay pwedeng makapag patakbo ng makina natin at friendly sa environment natin.....

Know what it takes to ignite a hydrogen bomb?

A couple of "regular" nuclear fission warheads... powered by good ol' uranium. In fact... even after ignition, without the shell of uranium bombs, the hydrogen bomb would soon fizzle out... because the hydrogen fusion reaction is not self-sustaining without the gravity, mass and extreme internal pressure of a star to keep it going.

Why do you think research into Hydrogen Fusion powerplants has been stalled (after untold billions of dollars in research) for the past five decades? It takes a trememdous amount of power (converted to heat and pressure) to start a fusion reaction... and a whole lot of power to keep the components of fusion contained in a magnetic bottle. There has, as of yet, been no self-sustaining fusion events at research sites... sites which have to be powered by conventional electricity.

-

It's funny whenever another backyard inventor claims to have found a way to extract more energy from water with a simple 12v system than is required to run it... if it were really that simple, our oceans would catch fire every time a 1,000,000,000 volt bolt of lightning strikes them.

[ghosthunter]

http://www.gas4free.com/?hop=henis

[SIZE="3"]REMINDER: use the tsikot search for existing topics before making your own.[/SIZE]

[ghosthunter]

kung pde y not po.. mas maganda kng gnun..peo sna hindi maapek2han ung performance ng auto..XD

[SIZE="4"]REMINDER: do not post in SMS/TXT format.

READ the RULES.[/SIZE]