AUTOFIX.COM.AU

There are currently 61 responses to “Run Your Car On Water - Money Saver or Scam?”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

1. 1 On June 7th, 2008, Colorado said:

   Hey Craig,

   I’m excited to see your results… I’ve been thinking about doing it as well. I hope you find good news. I’ll check back soon.

2. 2 On June 10th, 2008, trooter said:

   I’ve just heard about this seemingly unbelievable idea and I’m very inerested in seeing your outcomes. Hope it doesn’t end up to be a scam. Will be back soon to check out your results - Good Luck

3. 3 On June 16th, 2008, Run Your Car On Water said:

   I don’t understand why do people who have never tried this technology say that it’s scam. No, it’s not. I have seen how it works in real life.

4. 4 On June 17th, 2008, machineryman said:

   Why would you try any of this technology? You cannot just ignore chemistry and scientific laws, they won’t go away. Do the math!

   Instead of arguing over impossible alternatives, just drive economically you will create a really large benefit, not a lot of hot air.

5. 5 On June 19th, 2008, Charles said:

   Hi Graig
   I am working on a similar project for a upstart company and will be interested to see the result. Keep us posted.

6. 6 On June 21st, 2008, The Thylacine said:

   I worked on an auto maunfacturer sponsored project as a postgrad student in the late 1970’s following what is now called the first oil crisis. A great deal was learned about what worked and what didn’t. Whilst I cannot tell you all we found (it is the property of the manufacturer) I can tell you that the auto manufacturers are not sitting on some big secret. The physics are too well known for that to be the case.

   The sad reality is that it is theoretically possible to gain some improvement in fuel efficiency with H2 (or light volatile) injection but it is very difficult to achieve simply and economically enough to justify putting it on production vehicles, the industry is so competitive that if it were it would have been done already. Our greatest success was not so much in improving fuel economy but in greatly improving the burn cleanliness of the diesel engine. It came, however at the expense of great complexity and has now been surpassed by common rail injection, catalysts and filtering.

   This leads me to a simple rule of thumb. If the process you are considering buying is simple, then it is most probably a scam. Remember that driving technique alone can account for more than 40% variance in fuel economy.

   If the system consists of a simple hydrolyser (run off the car alternator) and a gas tube shoved somewhere into the engine induction system, it is a scam. The reason, first you take energy out of the engine to drive the alternator. (despite some of these scammers claims there is no such thing as freely available energy from your alternator, you have to burn fuel to get energy into the system) then you feed the output from the hydrolyser back into the engine all you can ever get is the energy you used to split the water in the first place LESS the efficiency of the hydroliser. Simple “jampot” hydrolysers are usually well under 40% energy efficient. So on first analysis you’ve lost at least 60% of the energy you used to power the system. Your fuel economy must therefore be WORSE.

   Things do not get any better on deeper analysis. The only possible argument that a small volume of H2 and O2 added to an IC engine is of benefit is if it can be proved that such an addition improves combustion. WHat’s more it must be shown to improve combustion over the entire operating range of the engine, something which frustrates the hell out of most developmental engineers. If you want to see just how difficult this is just take a look at the development of carburettors from the model T to relatively modern stock cars and fuel injection has eclipsed that technology. The reality of what most simple H2O systems do is that they displace useable O2 from the atmosphere (the hydrogen takes up a massive volume for the energy it stores. There’s more H2 in a cubic metre of water than there is is the same volume of solid hydrogen) in the intake mass and you actually end up having LESS air to burn. Again your fuel consumption must be WORSE. Remember that reality is what keeps on keeping on after you’ve stopped believing. The chemistry of stoichiometrics is not subject to wishfull thinking.

   A final point is the VOLUME of the H2 O2 (the O2 is actualy not needed as constitutes 20% of the atmosphere anyway)
   In our experimentation we were unable to demonstrate ANY advantage of H2 at less than 1% (by weight, a very large quantity of H2) and obtained best results at somwhere near the 5% mark. (Read earlier comments about displacement of atmospheric gasses and you begin to get some idea of what we were up against.) This leads to some more simple math. A one litre engine requires 4000 litres of air per MINUTE at 4000 RPM. Therefore it reqires a minimum of 40 litres of H2 per MINUTE (preferentially 200 litres) to have a significant effect. This volume is just not achievable with a simple alternator powered atmospheric pressure hydrolyser. (So again if the system seller proclaims that you need very little gas or water, it’s a scam, you need heaps) At one stage we had a 1.3 litre petrol engine running quite well on a low %H2 mix, the trouble was that it was taking all the engines available power to produce and compress the H2 and there was absolutely nothing left to push a car. That is reality.

   Unless the system you are contemplating has; a) direct injection of the H2 into the combustion chamber…it must be in addition to, not instead of normal fuel/air requirements. and b) a hydrolyser capable of producing a minimum of 2-5% volume H2 of the engines air requirements you are wasting your time and Money.

   MIT is currently attempting to find $8 million sponsors to help develop a H2 producing system based on catalytic cracking of the fuel, (a process probably similiar to current H2 production from natural gas) so it seems that the idea is not yet in the too hard basket. It can be catagorically stated that neither is it the easily done basket.

   Sorry I took so long but I hope it helps.

   The Thylacine

7. 7 On June 21st, 2008, craig said:

   Thanks for the informative comment! I understand where you are coming from - it is impossible to get something for nothing.
   After having done hours and hours of research on this subject and reading theory after theory of why it should and shouldn’t work I decided the only way to come to a conclusion is to run a test.
   While I do appreciate you sharing your knowledge, this is exactly why we are running the test - there are so many theories but very little evidence either proving or dis-proving the fact that the system may improve your gas mileage.

   Regards,
   Craig

8. 8 On June 21st, 2008, The Thylacine said:

   All due respects to your efforts Craig but a one off experiment is an anecdote and not evidence. Without calibrated instruments and relying on cash register dockets and vehicle odometers you can’t even get into the ball park. Statistically, since driving technique can cause great variance any result you get will be plus or minus driver induced variance. Which will almost always be greater than any change you are attempting to measure. Even using the same driver or drivers you will not get a valid result unless the driver is unaware that a test is being carried out. (Professional test drivers are often given MISINFORMATION about the test to prevent them altering their technique and thereby skewing the test) To begin with you need to collect accurate base data from an unmodified vehicle, then more data after modification and analyse for differences. everything will need to be corrected for temperature, relative air density, humidity and altitude. I’m afraid that even that level of simple research is out of the reach of the casual enqirer. All your hard work may, yes, just may, give you a valid indicator provided the change is substantial, the greater odds, however, favour you wasting your time. As I said earlier the chemistry of stoichiometrics (ideal burning) does not obey human desires.

   There are a number of Institute of Mechanical Engineers (UK) and SAE (US) and if you can read Italian French and German I’m sure that they also published papers on this topic. The engineers already have the answers, the IC engine is no longer frontier science and the very fact that devices like those you intend experimenting with are not commonly fitted to production vehicles tells you that the research did not come up with the same results that the Woo Woo snake oil saleman does. So should the fact that these devices reappear every time there is a hike in fuel prices and NONE has ever survived the initial panic. Face it an engine manufacturer would much rather put in $10.95 of jam jar, electric lead and rubber hose than $150 of fuel injection if actually worked. If they truly met the claims of their proponents there would a) be some very solid intellectual property protection in place and b) a very wealthy possessor of that intellectual property.

   I wish you well. I don’t have unlimited knowlege but I do possess a solid understanding of what is needed to get this technology to work. I can tell you that I have not seen anything promoted on the internet that I would invest in.

   An aside. I am currently running conventional water/methonol injection (jets into intake plenum) in my 1978 V12 fuel injected (Megasquirt) Jaguar. (it’s my toy, not my daily driver…too bloody thirsty for that). This technology was proven in the WW11 aircraft engines. Based on some rudimentary figures (the Jag has 2 fuel tanks so I can run through one with Water injection and the other without) it looks like I might have about a 1 mile per gallon improvement. as I usually get in the 8-10 MPG range that would be a 10+% improvement. (Highway only, I live in the bush and haven’t taken the Jag to town for more than 10 years.) I might suggest that since this is a proven technology and costs about the same a the woo woo H2 O2 system and that you would be better off investing in it.

   Enjoy your research
   The Thylacine

9. 9 On June 21st, 2008, craig said:

   I agree that without a controlled environment this test is really a stab in the dark and the variables are many and will affect the outcome of the test.

   Put simply all I am trying to establish is whether this ’system’ has any merit at all when applied to an everyday car used in everyday conditions which is how I see it being applied should someone decide to give it a go. I am not expecting anything substantial but with all the talk about it I thought I had to give it a go.

   I have briefly read about the water/methanol injection used during WW11, it certainly sounds interesting. I imagine a 10% improvement even on highway running would be welcome in the old Jag! I will have to research this a bit further I think.

   Regards,
   Craig

10. 10 On June 22nd, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    I guess the main thing is to have a bit of fun and maybe learn a little on the way. It is certainly good science to share your research and results.

    Since I don’t know exactly which system you are contemplating could you let me know if it involves injecting or inducting the H2 into the combustion chamber.
    The reason I ask is that without injection the displacement of atmospheric gases by H2 (H2 relative density to air is .0899 so it becomes very apparent that a small amount of H2 will occupy a lot of space compared to air) will ensure reduced available oxygen thereby reducing the power potential of the motor. Although hydrogen has a high energy content for mass its density means that you need about 4 times the volume of (liquid) H2 to get the same power as petrol, much more if using it as a gas. So again REPLACING any part of the intake charge with H2 is an energy losing formula and reinforces the necessity for supplemental injection.

    Sadly the Woo Woo snake oil salemen’s products also suffer from woeful H2 production. My science teacher daughter still demonstrates with a small hydroliser I built in an old motorcycle battery case at uni over 30 years ago. The device is very similiar to that illustrated in several of the net Woo Woo’s promotioal material. It is well built (being done under the supervision of a very experienced lab technician for whom perfect was not quite good enough) It has large stainless steel anodes and cathodes and at 12 volts 4 amps it can produce about 40 litres H2 (free atmosphere) a day (”scientifically” measured by bubbling into a garbage bag inserted into an upturned bin…though the bang when we lit the bag was worth the wait). The 5.3 litre engine in the old Jag would gulp that on start up. In fact it is marginally over 6 revolutions of the V12. You can probably see that I’m leading to the conclusion that the installation of this type of device on any car engine would be a total waste of time, they simply lack the output to have any effect at all. The only real change they can make is to force the alternator to work harder… and that costs fuel.

    Supplemental injection is a nightmare. One fuel injection system on a car is bad enough but sorting out two and getting them to complement rather than fight each other requires dedication verging on fanatical. (Just sorting out the Megasquirt system on the Jag has taken a couple of years of on and off hard work and it is still not where I’d like it to be) Problems are compounded when you use two different fuels. H2 is in a class of its own for presenting difficulties. Cyrogenic temperatures push injecting liquid H2 into very real rocket science needing budgets akin to that of NASA. The large diameter tubing which goes with the lack of density is very difficult to fit around all the other plumbing on an engine. Since it also is the universes best leaker (theory has it that you cannot actually contain H2, only delay its escape temporarily) conventional injection solenoids are useless and as yet I’m aware of only one system which has been able to cope. It is a revised refrigeration valve system that actually uses the H2 pressure to direct gas flow to the cylinder or a return line. That system also has strong intellectual protection.

    Last but very importantly there is the not yet mentioned killer stumbling block of needing yet another orifice in the cylinder head. There are very few modern engines where this can be done without going back to the drawing board for a completely new head. Again the properties of H2 mean that this hole has to be bigger rather than smaller…more pracical nightmares.

    It wasn’t my intention to try to cut off your enthusiasm (which I admire) but to try to explain that the problem isn’t new and that along with many others I’ve “been there, done that” and there are more obstacles to overcome than most realise. The advantages of light fractional injection were demonstrated very early in the development of the Diesel. It may be sadly true that a promising system utelising LPG injection in large diesels was sunk by oil giant pressured manufacturer resistance in the late 1970’s but other than that possibility there have been no technically or commercially successful systems yet produced.

    The Thylacine

    P.S. A short treatise in the science of water injection.
    Water injection is based on the phenomena of latent heat of evaporation. When a liquid vaporises more energy is absorbed but the temperature does not rise. In a combustion chamber that creates a win win situation of both increasing pressure (the gas occupies more space than the liquid) and reducing temperature (the vaporisation absorbing combustion heat) thereby adding to power output without consuming more fuel. The practical difficulties lie in getting the water into the cylinder as a liquid (water vapour is yet another charge density reducer) and that there is an upper limit to the amount of water that can be added without literally putting out the fire. There are a number of websites on the topic and again I suggest that this would be a better path to experiment in if you don’t have a lot of resources.

11. 11 On June 22nd, 2008, Ian said:

    Hi Craig
    I will also like to try this water as gas system on a diesel car. Have you done the test yet? Any advice can help alot. The law says that energy can not be created or destroyd but only converted from one form to another. But isnt there alot of potential energy stored in water just as in any fossil feul. I do not believe that you will get the same energy out of the hydrogen that was used from the alternator. The power used in electrolisys should onley unlock the potential energy of the water , energy that was there even before the electrolisys.
    I THINK ???

    Thanks
    Ian
    South-Africa

12. 12 On June 23rd, 2008, the Thylacine said:

    Hi Ian,

    Sorry to say but you’re off the track with your reasoning there. When you hydrolyse water you add energy from the power source…in this case the car alternator to break the chemical bond between oxygen and hydrogen. To do this you need to supply more energy than contained in that bond and when the bond is reformed (burnt in your engine)that is all you can get back. There is absolutely no free lunch out there, no key to unlocking some other source of energy, just a closed system.

    I borrowed this basic explaination from Wikipedia

    “The electrons of atoms are electromagnetically attracted by the nuclei of atoms, due to the opposite electric charge of elecrons and nuclei. Chemical bonds are characterised by physical states in which a few electrons move partly from one atom to one or more other atoms, driven by the achievement of a lower state of energy from this motion. This lowering (releasing) of energy is caused by a rearrangement of charges, usually resulting in net decrease in the average distance between the electrons of all the bonded atoms, and their nuclei. The transfer of charge caused by the movement of the electron from one atom to another, also causes the participating atoms (which may number from two to many) to be attracted to one another electromagnetically. The attractive force between atoms is the bond.” (Wikipedia)

    Go back and re read your high school chemistry book on chemical reactions. Put another way when hydrogen is burnt you get water plus energy given off as heat. This reaction is reversible if you add the energy given off back into the water to seperate it into the hydrogen and oxygen you had at the begining. You’ve actually got to put some electrons back so that the Hydrogen and Oxygen can exist as seperate identities again. Nature being what it is doesn’t do everything 100% efficiently so to actually achieve this split you will need more energy than you got out of the original burn.

    The Thylacine

13. 13 On June 23rd, 2008, Jim said:

    First, I’ve seen several different claims and wondering which one you are attempting to use in your test.

    There is the Stan Meyer version, which supposedly was run only on water. However, I’ve also read that he was convicted for fraud and another article claims he was poisoned (by the oil companies) to squash his findings.
    http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html (poisoning)
    http://www.carsthatrunonwater.net/ (fraud)

    Then there is the “HHO” or “Water4Gas” and a couple of others that sell instructions and/or kit, that supposedly converts the water molecule into “HHO” as opposed to h2O and increases gas mileage from 25%-50%. Of course, one article says that it isn’t something that you just “installed and go”, but it may take hours to “tune” to get it working properly.
    http://www.squidoo.com/run_car_with_water
    http://water4gas.com/2books.htm

    I also wonder if this could also damage the engine. If you boost the combustion to increased BTU’s, as claimed, then it would also indicate that the engine would tend to run hotter and this could adversely effect the longevity of the engine components. Therefore, it would make sense to rebuild the engine with performance components that would help maintain the engine life. After all, this is what they do to race/drag cars to keep them from seizing up due to the high performance fuels they use.

    Now, as “Thylacine” indicates that the manner in which one drives is going to make a substantial difference in the test. I would have to say that this is not going to be a significant factor. Whether you drive more city miles or highway miles may have more of a factor in the actual mileage efficiency. If I drive my truck mostly around town, I average around 12mpg. If I drive it on a long highway trip, I get around 17mpg. So, if you are using the vehicle in similar conditions, the test should provide some significance, especially considering the claims of 25%-50% versus the 10% he gets using his meth-powered Jag. As far as his hypothesis that the system will use more power from the alternator, therefore it would not be efficient, this is the whole point of the claims. If you increase gas mileage only 10%, then you are gaining efficiency. So, the amount of power used to power the alternator, which powers the electrolysis, is technically overcome due to a higher efficient output. Of course, he is talking theory, but after years on the technical side of things, I’ve had to explain to engineers why their theory missed the results they were expecting. So, the theories must be tested to find the true results.

    Ian makes a good point in his theory, as well. After all, a battery is nothing more than dormant chemicals that release energy from a chemical reaction due to electrolysis.

    I’m looking forward to hearing the results of your test. I’m bookmarking this link!

    I would also be interested in hearing about the possibility of increased engine noise, valve clatter, etc. and if there is a noticeable higher operating temperature on the engine.

14. 14 On June 23rd, 2008, craig said:

    Jim - We are testing the “water 4 gas” system of producing ‘Browns Gas’ or HHO from water.

    The Thylacine - With all due respect there are hundreds of theories regarding this subject. What we are aiming to do is answer the question of whether or not the system shows any promise in a practical sense, not add to the confusion with yet another theory.

15. 15 On June 24th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Hi Craig/Jim

    Sorry but what I’m trying to show you is NOT theory it is SCIENCE. It is an analysis of the various processes involved in hydrolising water and then adding the products of that process to the combustion chamber of an internal combustion engine. I would be very happy if you attempted to fault the science instead of harping on about “theories”

    Show me, if you can, that the analysis given is faulty?

    Show me that Hydrogen doen NOT displace atmospheric gases in a naturally aspirated engine?

    Show me that you CAN get more energy out of hydrolisis than you put in?

    Show me that the hydroliser you are using CAN produce enough hydrogen to actually make a difference? A blunt illustration here is that it is the difference between pissing in a stream 6 inches wide (it has an effect) and pissing in the Amazon (it makes no practical difference)

    Please PLEASE show me how your tap water fueled hydroliser is impervious to electrode poisening? The hydroliser is the basis for electroplating technologies and it won’t take long for any electrically active component of the water (salts metalic particles etc) to end up firmly attatched to one of your electrodes thereby “poisening” the entire system. Any proponent claiming that they can use tap water CANNOT have thoroughly tested their product.

    Show me that your engine CAN produce enough power to both produce sufficient hydrogen and drive the car at the same time?

    Show me that 100 years of constant research on the internal combustion engine has somehow missed a FREE LUNCH?

    What I have stated is very clear. If you analyse what is happening you don’t need to spend any money to show that the systems as promoted on the internet CANNOT POSSIBLY WORK. The sales people are relying on your scientific ignorance and confusion. They have taken a process which has been shown to offer some benefit and then claimed that their VERY DIFFERENT process delivers the same benefits. It can NOT and it is a FRAUD.

    It WILL NOT work because.

    1) Hydrogen is a LESS POWERFUL fuel than petrol. (the energy density of hydrogen is ONE FOURTH that of petrol). Therefore substituting hydrogen for petrol is a POWER LOSING proposition.

    2) In a naturally aspirated engine Hydrogen DOES displace atmospheric gases. Most particularly Oxygen. Since hydrogen is roughly ONE TENTH as dense as air, if you add 1% hydrogen you are displacing 10% air. More importantly 2+% oxygen meaning that the engine now has 2+% LESS potential power.

    Please show me where any of this is theoretical? I’d have to argue that it is actually EMPIRICAL and based on DEMONSTRABLE OCCURENCES.

    I am currently engaged as a consultant on a project which is attempting to generate commercial quantities of Hydrogen using solar power. (Unless this type of technology is developed the Hydrogen Economy will remain a dream and the developed world will collapse in a heap when the oil runs out) None of the technologies in this project are new but the way they are being utelised is very radical. A MAJOR component of the development is the hydrolisation of water. I would claim that my understanding of hydrolisis is as up to speed as anybodies. 32 years ago as a postgrad student I assisted in research into the very question of closed system hydrolisis a a means of improving the efficiency of the internal combustion engine. The result was MAYBE. PROVIDED you INJECT the hydrogen into the combustion chamber. Absolute reality: it is possible but technically complicated and expensive and NOT WARRANTED by the relatively small gain. NONE of the internet products go anywhere near satisying this provable necessity.

    Craig, If you look at the internet site http://www.eagle-research.com/browngas/whatisbg/whatis.html on Brown’s gas you will see that the author there clearly states that there is no scientific vlidation of the phenomena he is writing about. He also states that the presumed production of HHO is not predictably repeatable. If this gas does indeed exist and given the properties claimed for it, it would be the last thing I would put into my engine.

    Browns gas incidentally was the name given for the various concoctions of coal gas produced in the very early industrial revolution. Hydrogen was the major consistuent but its content could vary anywhere from 50% to 90%. The first street lighting in the world London Bridge in 1798 was accomplished with “Browns Gas” The very much later Yuhl Brown was an eccentric who had a tendency to ignore some fairly solidly established principles (he may not necessarily have been wrong). His “accomplishments” remain highly controversial and very difficlt if not impossible to replicate.

    That leads me to a final point. If the theories (and yes, they are still theories though research points to the reasoning as heading in the right direction) are correct, why on earth would you want to play with the speed of the flame front in your existing engine? The engineers who designed your engine did so around parameters based on the consumption of petroleum fuel. Starting with this they determined, compression ratio, bore stroke ratio, connecting rod length and offset, camshaft timimg, ignition timing and everything else including cooling system requirements. You are playing with one of the absolute fundamentals of your engine and in my humble opinion to enter that field without adequate prior knowlege is most likely a recipe for mechanical disaster.

    If you want to improve your fuel economy the very first thing you can do is to adapt your driving technique for economic motoring. This will bring about the biggest single improvement you can make. If you use a quality assurance approach as this is the largest possible gain it should be the very first step you take. What’s more it’s FREE. Secondly you could invest in a vacuum gauge (the auto manufacturers tried this path after the first oil hikes…the consumers foolishly rejected their genuine attempt at assistance) Read the instructions that come with the gauge on how it can help you to get much better fuel consumption and then actually put them into practice. Unless you already have excellent economy habits (The vast majority of us do not) you will probably find that you can save yourself a considerable amount of fuel and therefore money. You don’t have to rely on anything other than common sense.

    I’m outa here

    The Thylacine

16. 16 On June 24th, 2008, Jim said:

    “The Thylacine” - I will give you credit to some extent, but at the same time, your own words appear to be contradictory. While I am not a scientist, my previous 25+ years in electronics does provide me with a strong level of knowledge in this subject, as well.

    Yes, as you stated, any form of electrolysis is a chemical reaction that will eventually degrade the components. That’s why batteries wear out. In an effort to simplify this for others that may not understand the details… While there are other chemicals also included, along with metal components, one of the other ingredients in a battery is water! If there is no water, the battery doesn’t work (Note: Don’t use tap water to fill it, as there are too many other mineral deposits in tap water, that will degrade the battery’s performance. So, use Distilled Water only.) Batteries also produce and release gases, which is what this Water4Gas concept is built upon.

    Considering your observance of the atomic breakdown that occurs, the battery also continually discharges itself through the chemical reactions and the breakdown of the atoms. The atomic structure becomes void of the elements that keep the activity of the battery in a constant state of charge and while you can charge the battery, it will never have the previous power that it once contained. So, while your quoted theory is basically correct, it is also incomplete. If you go back to Wikepedia, you can also find more information regarding the different structures of hydrogen atoms, as well.

    I will dispute the “driving habits” as being a valid hypothesis to dispute the theory of this modification (and whether it uses more energy that it provides, which would indicate that you would see a decrease in miles/per/gallon). Most drivers have particular habits and I will grant that some may modify their habits and see a positive result, albeit a small overall result (unless they are one to always stomp the gas pedal to accelerate). However, if one continues to drive in a particular manner and by adding a higher grade fuel or additive, provides an increase in efficiency, that in itself will determine whether the objective is being met, i.e. an increase in miles/per/gallon. (Craig, make sure you tell your wife to just keep driving like she normally does!)

    I’m not even going to evaluate your comments regarding “working on developing hydrogen from solar power”, but given all of the other negative comments on using hydrogen as a fuel, or whether it’s as efficient as petrol, causes a bit of confusion and therefore, why would someone expend their efforts on something that’s inefficient? Of course, as I remember, isn’t it hydrogen that is used in the Space Shuttle rockets? Why don’t they just use hi-grade gasoline? Never mind… I’m sure that using methonol in your Jag is a much better alternative, despite the fact that it is also a “hot” fuel and can cause problems with engines that weren’t designed to use it, leading to premature engine component failure due to heat. I hope you have updated the engine with high-performance racing parts. I would certainly recommend titanium rings for starters.

    I will concur with the possibilities of engine problems from using a fuel that the engine was not designed to handle. Of course, I brought that up in my last comment and it was the basis of my suggestions, i.e. whether the engine runs hotter or whether there seems to be additional engine noise.

    Now, you can try to provide all the theory to disprove the concept, but have you actually developed a model and tested it? The reason I found this site, was because I have an acquaintance who brought this to my attention (we are both in the same profession, which has nothing to do with cars, although I do know a bit about engines… especially Harley engines, which I used to help people upgrade to racing performance levels, which also included using aviation grade fuels, methanol and similar fuels used in drag racing). He told me, that after his brother-in-law and a friend had both installed this, he has also done so and claims that his gas mileage has increased by 50%. He provided me with the information to modify my truck and since I didn’t pay anything for it, he has absolutely nothing to gain from recommending it. Of course, being the skeptic that I am, I started looking for information on this, which is how I found this site. So, I am certainly interested in hearing about Craig’s results, as well.

    I hope that Craig will also take notes on the previous recommendations on engine noise, clatter (especially on acceleration) and operating temperature. If it only appears to be a slight increase in operating temperature, then I wouldn’t be too concerned. If I have to rebuild my engine (currently at 152K miles) a little sooner than expected, I figure the gas saved would more than pay for it and I would put in performance pistons, rings, valves, etc. when the time came.

    Looking forward to some additional real-life results…

    Jim

17. 17 On June 24th, 2008, Ian. said:

    Hi guys. I am not a profesional in any of the requierd fields so I cannot brag on my schooling or experiance. I am a kid of 25 . No post grad science wiz. I do a bit of backyard machanics and race my performance car at any event i can get to. I will try this system for myself. I am going to use a 1700 turbo diesel engine mounted static. Will run it at a constant 2000 rpm witha a constant load. 24 hours a day 5 days a week. First I will do 1000 hours plain diesen then another 1000 with craig system. Then I’ll strip the motor and check the pistons valves and sleves for any abnormal damage. I wil also during the 2000 hours service and take oil samples for analysis every 100 hours. If this test fail to prove an decreas in diesel usage than I will be convinced of the that other guys theories that we are al mad. Thanks Craig you are inspiaring.
    Ian.

18. 18 On June 24th, 2008, Jim said:

    Ian, THAT is definitely a “proven” testing method. I’ll be looking forward to your results, as well.

    Jim

19. 19 On June 24th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Hi Jim,

    You say that I’m contradicting myself, where and how?

    Actually I didn’t state that any form of hydrolisis is a chemical reaction. I said that a hydroliser is the basis for electroplating technology. A very different assertion.

    I’m not a chemist and I don’t know if they draw a distinction between a reaction and a process. A battery being a store of chemical energy which can be accessed as electrical energy when a circuit is completed. In certain classes of battery that reaction can be reversed by electrolysis (recharging the battery) The electolysis is the means of “undoing” the reaction but I can’t say whether it is in itself a chemical reaction. Also batteries don’t actually use water, they use and acidic electrolyte (well lead/acid batteries do) The water seems to have a dual role of regulating the conductivity of the electrolyte and assisting in dispersion of excess heat (created both in conjunction with the electrical energy during discharge and from excess energy input during recharge). The water content must be kept within certain limits to keep the battery functional. That is why lost water must be replaced.

    You hit the nail on the head when you raised the issue of tap water contamination of batteries. The stuff in tap water might not be harmful to humans (beneficial even?) but it cetainly kills electrodes. That is why I raised it in the specific context of hydrolisers.
    I restate and further refine the assertion that any proponent of electolysis assisted H2 production for on board automobles production who claims that tap water is a suitable hydroliser fuel has failed to adequately test their apparatus. Like a battery, as you point out, it will soon fail. (actually you can’t use pure water in a hydrolyser, it needs to be “doped” to make it electrically conductive…you just need to be very careful about which doping agents you choose)

    Incidentally the gases given off by a recharging battery are hydrogen and oxygen as in the recharging state a battery is also a hydroliser. Hydrogen being produced at the negative electrode and oxygen at the positive. It occurs that this is yet another source of water loss.

    I acknowlege that I was using a pretty broad brush to paint my picture and apologise for any lack of completeness. However, the title of this line of posts is “Run you car on water scam” and I tried to give the essentials of the evidence that it is a scam without writing a thesis.

    You are free to dispute the assertion regarding driving habits, but your intuition is contrary to research. Driving habits have been demonstrtated to play a very significant role in fuel consumption. I probably should reference that for you but this thread seems devoid of that sort of thing so I’ll remain lazy.

    You are drawing a very incorrect conclusion regarding my opinion of Hydrogen…I love the stuff. Again I was writing strictly in the context of demonstrating scamming in relation to naturally aspirating it into an IC engine. Again I wasn’t writing a thesis and rabbiting on about cyrogenics, ortho spin and compressability issues would not have had any bearing on the topic in question. Once again I restate the issue. Though Hydrogen has a high specific energy (which is what makes it right for rocket fuel) it has a low energy for its mass. You need 4 times the liquid hydrogen to store the same energy as a given quantity of petroleum. My point is that since the run you car on water pundits are using the hydrogen as a gas, not a liquid you need a very much greater volume of hydrogen to get the same energy as petrol. Since that hydrogen displaces atmospheric gases (by being ducted directly from the hydroliser to the intake plenum) and since 1 unit of hydrogen occupies the same space as 10 units of air (relative density) there is caused a simultaenous reduction in available oxygen and the introduction of a lowered potential fuel. Therefore the potential of the engine to produce energy must be lowered and it must be less efficient. You raise the point yourself. Why would anyone expend their effort on something that’s inefficient? A very valid question, except you let yourself down by making in rhetorical. The real answer is that they don’t know their science!!!and they are wasting their time.

    Why the snide commentary about water injecton…it is proven and as you can see above I was able to explain the principle underlyinmg it in a single paragraph. Directly contrary to your assertion water or water/methonal injection will lead to heat induced component failure, its purpose and action is to cool the combustion chamber. Excessive use can cause lubrication problems and THAT can cause failure, but as I said there is an upper limit as to the volume that can be SAFELY used. Since water injection actually reduces temperatures your diagnosis of the need for titanium rings is a wide of the mark. The life expectancy of titanium rings is too short and the exhorbitant expense completely unjustifiable in a street car. I didn’t originally try water injection with the goal of improving fuel economy (though I knew that it might be an additional benefit). The big Jags have always had cooling problems in OZ as the factory sized the radiator for cooler English conditions. I have doubled the core thickness and increased the area by over one third (as big as will fit under the bonnet) and was still experiencing overheating in the Oz mountain summers, (hot and high) hence the experiment with water injection. NO-ONE here has yet put foreward a reasoned argument to why the addition of a piddling little amount of a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen (see pissing in the Amazon) is going to increase fuel milage by 50%…I’ll leave that ball in your expert hands.

    Your attempt at scarcasm and personal attack is noted denied and refuted. I asked that you attack the argument which up till there you sort of managed. Your emotional reaction is akin to that of a true believer unable to reconcile an obvious deviance between belief and reality, leave it out of technical discussion please. Argue with fact not feeling.

    I’m always very highly skeptical of the claims that somebodies uncle, father-in-law, second cousin twice removed fitted xy and z and doubled their horsepower, milage or dick length. The only people I know who keep accurate records of their fuel consumption (other than competition folk) are those who are compelled to by the tax office or their boss. Most people do have a rough idea but they wouldn’t have a clue as to the true extent of any real change. There is also the very human factors of unwillingness to admit failure, uncertainty or plain laziness as well as the necessity to seek affirmation of a decision through convincing some-one else to do the same. I do know that, absolutely without fail, over a lifetime of issuing challenges to such claims ( I enjoy a certain notoriety among my peers for issuing these challenges) I have NEVER had a challenge accepted or the claim validated. I simply write it off as part of being human. As I pointed out to Craig he needs tons of readings becuase he is trying to measure something which is inside the intrinsic experimental error of his mensuration technique. At best he might be able to discern a trend but that is the limit of the ability of his test protocol. Not his fault, but real world. And I definitely wouldn’t discourage him from having a go. Good on him and wish there were more like him.

    Your motor should have a design life expectancy of 200K miles so you’d be rebuilding it a bit soon to justify the cost.

    Since you appear committed to wasting your money on a scam I’m not going to even try to stop you. If you can’t figure the argument I’ve been laying you’ve earned the financial penalty. I do however greatly resent the scammer getting a paycheck for his lies so I’ll tell you what they want you to do for free and you can save $50-$500 on the scam.

    Take any wide topped plastic screw lidded jar. Anything between a pint and a quart will be fine. The lid and the jar must be made from an insulator not metal. Drill three holes in the lid. Two small ones 1/8 will be fine. these two holes should be 180 degrees apart. drill the third hole larger, about 1/2 inch approximately in the centre of the lid.

    Next obtain enough stainless steel wire (MIG welding wire is ideal) for a little over double the depth of the jar.

    Cut the wire in half and insert the two wires into the small holes in the lid leaving about an inch on the outside of the lid. Secure them with silicone sealant.
    (if you want to increase the contact area in the same manner as at least one scammer cut the wires a little longer and wrap it around a pencil to make a pretty little coil)

    Next step is to obtain a length of plastic tubing that is a push fit into the larger hole in the lid and long enough to reach from where you plan to place the jar under your hood to your air inlet tract. Push through the lid so that it protrudes about an inch into the jar. Again seal with silicone.

    Make a bracket and install the jar under your hood.

    Screw lid on jar and run auto wiring of the recomended capacity from each of the stainless wires to your battery. Arrange for one to connect to the positive termnal the other to the negative. (you can get as sophisticated as you like here. Running through the ignition is a good idea as direct connection might just flatten your battery and produce gases when you’re not actually driving the car)

    Connect plastic tube to any suitable part of the inlet tract and seal with silicon

    Fill jar approximately 2/3 with distilled (though some say that tap is OK) water and add about a teaspoon of battery acid.

    There you have it a completed water boosted hydrolysing economiser. Go driving and save youself squillions. That, my friend, or something very like it, is what your money is going to buy you. Some of the “Kits” might be a little fancier but they are no better.

    Worth $49, $199, $495 suck it and see.

    Give 50% better milage…NO BLOODY WAY.

    The Thylacine

20. 20 On June 25th, 2008, Eddie said:

    Great debate/dicussion going on so I thoughI might throw my 2 cents in. I’m a mechanical engineer so i have been exposed to thermodynamics (study of converting heat into movement or work) as part of attaining the degree.

    Now I must admit ‘Thylacine’ is using basic laws of energy, in that each time energy is consumed/changed there are losses (combination of Enthalpy and Entropy) and the HHO generator will consume more energy than it is creating resulting in inefficiences and lead to higher fuel consumption (Thylacine, please correct if I’m wrong). And this is fine for understanding the theory but there are also practical aspects to this challenge - which I think most people are getting their kicks from, including me is it possible improve mileage (fuel consumption) but substituting/subsidising with a cheaper ‘fuel’.

    If we assume there are 100 units (joules, etc) of energy being fed to an IC engine per unit time (say each second) in the form of fuel, we can say roughly that IC engines aren’t the most energy efficient and 30% goes to making mechanical energy (motion), 60% makes noise and heat, 5% provides energy to other ancillaries (water pump) and 5% spins the alternator.

    If we then assume the HHO generator is only 40% efficient then 2 units of energy are converted to H2 & O2 gases (2 units = 5 units x 40%). These 2 units of gases are then used as fuel (completely consumed) and if we keep demand for energy the same (30 units of energy for mechanical motion) then this implies the fuel rate from the ‘tank’ is reduced to 98 units per unit time. Regardless if the vehicle is moving are not the alternator will produce electical power to the vehicle’s electrical system which includes the HHO generator, provided the motor is on and running. It is recognised it is not a ‘demanding’ load on the alternator as it is not producing sufficiently large quantities of the HHO gas.

    I think this is main princple most HHO generator enthusiasts are seeking to do - that being partially reclaim some mechancial energy (converted to electrical energy) to make cheap readily accessible chemical energy that a car/truck/bike can generate some mechanical energy (motion) from. This discussion does not consider the heating value of either fuel, but merely recognises fuel as a source of chemical energy that can be harnessed to do work.

    It is in similar vain (not same) as an exhaust turbo reclaiming exhaust energy to ‘pump’ inlet air to the inlet manifold which itelf improves IC engine power output. Admittedly an alternator mounted to a turbo would be more ‘adventerous’ means for generating electrical power for the HHO generator but then the system becomes more complicated due to the requirement for a reduction gearbox yadda, yadda, yadda ;-).

    Of course each HHO generator will perform differently due the very wide nature of the builders design (have they coupled the electrical supply through a potentiometer linked to the vehilce’s inlet manifld pressure to adjust HHO gas production to engine load), the vehicle it is applied to, so expect to see a range of ‘claims’.

    But in all honesty I’m only going to listen to those people who have tried making and using HHO generators and discard others comments who haven’t trialled and then condemn it based on their opinions only.

    So as rudamentary as just observing fuel consumption each time you fill up I feel hits the nail on the head - afterall all you’re seeking to do is improve fuel consumption. If i head down the same road and install one of these units (more self designed i think though, i don’t have much faith in jam jars ocy’ strapped under the bonnet) I will put it over a rolling road dynometer to see the influence of HHO gas on power output. Craig do you have plans to put the car ona rolling road then see power output with and without the HHO generator working? Unfortunately for both cars i drive neither has a fuel consumption ‘meter’ (trip computer) so i can’t easily really track my mileage on the open road.

    Best luck with it Craig, Ian & Jim, I’m keen to hear the outcome.

21. 21 On June 25th, 2008, craig said:

    Hi Eddie,
    Thank you for weighing in on the discussion. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us, and in a way that even a grease monkey can understand!
    I have a few ‘tweaks’ that I want to try out with the system once our benchmark test is complete, however as much as I would like to run the car on a rolling road I can’t justify the expense at the moment. (Had a back injury 3 years ago, closed our workshop 2 years ago, I am now on a disability pension - ain’t life grand!)
    The feel ‘by the seat of the pants’ is that in the mid-range the engine feels stronger and the idle has definitely improved but I think I will reserve my judgment until after the mileage test is complete.

    Craig

22. 22 On June 26th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Hi Eddie,

    Thanks for buying in. I’m also Mech. Eng. but graduated in 1969 and have been in project masnagement for last 25 years and haven’t looked at anything but human problems since. ie all rust.

    The problem with the claims made for this process is that under thermodynamics it is another (impossible) over unity situation. The only valid argument for improved milage can come from demonstrating a secondary effect of the hydrolysation process. The most logical of those is that the addition of H2 (since O2 is abundant in the atmosphere it is redundant in this situation) gives an improvement in burn quality. Under certain circumstances that case seems to have been proved.

    (I was lumbered with the report writing as part of a discontinued …a new baby meant that money needs won, M.Eng. in 1977/8. A very mechanically savvy truck owner had run an additionl injection circuit and was injecting a small dose of LPG along with fuel oil. He made some pretty astonishing claims and drew the attention of a Jap manufacturer. They funded a small verification project. It appeared that there was some validity in the claims with the biggest improvement being in particulate discharge. The same claims for hydrolysis were floating around then, as now and since on board generation made some economic sense…LPG prices were proportional to diesel, several experiments were carried out. They were inconclusive.)

    This brings me to the point of this exercise. The benefits existed only when the H2 (or propane) was supplemental (ie in addition) to the normal induction process. This is for the very good reason that due to relative density issues the light material displaces atmospheric oxygen in a naturally aspirated angine and you’re on a big loser.

    Summation. It is highly probable that there is a secondary benefit to the hydrolysation of water and the subsequent injection of H2 into the combustion chamber.

    Technical problems are: That H2 is a difficult substance to work with. It’s natural leakage rate makes it beyond the physicxal capabilities of conventional injection. There is a lower mass threshold before any benefit can be measured. That threshold is substantially higher than an unloaded auto alternator powered hydrolyser can produce. (On the 1.3 , carbureted for petrol, injected for H2 the hydrolyser was consuming approximately 28 Kw). Unloaded alternator powered hydrolysers are therefor inadequate. Volume capable hydrolysers are too costly, have high energy needs and are unsuited to installation in the automotive environment. Hydrolysers are very sensitive to impurities (poisening) and that creates significant operational difficulties. Natural aspiration of the H2 into engine is not viable. The extent of modification needed eliminates the viability of retro-fitting to most exisitng motors.

    Conclusion: It can probably be made to work but it is not a practical option for a backyarder.

    Totally off the point note

    The hydrolyser we are using in our solar experimentation is of the “Billings” type it runs at 250+ degrees C and 50+ atmospheres pressure and is huge, it is also over 80% energy efficient. You just need a lot of energy and you get a lot of H2…now all we’ve got to do is get the sun to power it. (O.K… I talked to the Hydrolyser guru today)

    The Thylacine

23. 23 On June 26th, 2008, Eddie said:

    Greetings again,

    I had a chat with a fellow mech eng whom I went to uni with. He went on to do a masters in alternate fuel on internal combustion engines and did review ‘Browns Gas’ concept and chuckled when I mentioned the HHO debate. He did say he never did perform a demonstration of this concept (as what is proposed here, supplamenting hydrocarbon fuel with another fuel form) but he did tinker with HHO generators & did offer this:
    - you need a minimum of 1.44 amps to actually cause the water to conver to gas, regardless of pressure & temperature of the water or inlet manifold. i see most systems are nearing 3 amps so gas is being produced but not huge quantities. So this is quick diagnostic info in case your HHO gnerator appears to be not producing gas, maybe your manuals offer this same info?
    - the volume of gas produced is directly proportional to the current you put thru it, so some systems out there use a potentiometer linked the MAP (manifold air pressure) sensor which will measure ‘load’ on your engine and adjust the current to the HHO generator. More load then more current is required to produce more gas.
    - hydrogen has a very wide flamability range which implies you can tune (lean) your engine beyond normal limits and it will still fire (less power will result though). Note this how some claims have been substantiated - the installer has really ‘detuned’ the engine for maximum fuel economy so the engine still fires and produces enough power to make the vehicle driveable, but compared to original power output, it would be way down on oringal factory settings. No comments on what this is doing to you engine though as leaning you air fuel ratio will cause exhaust temps to climb. Note most petrol engines these days use a catalytic converter. Catalytic converters ’scrub’ the exhaust fumes better when the air fuel ratio is (slightly) richer - I beleive there is less (volume) NOx & SOx gases to absorb. The wide range of flamability of hydrogen may also explain why you feel the engine runs more smoothly at idle and may appear to pull more in the mid rev range - The amount of gas produced/consumed will have an effect on your ‘dead spots’ in you rev range. Mind you being an engineer I’m more reliant on seeing actual torque and power figures from a rolling road dynometer to support anyones claims (as I intend to do when i can finally commit to building and installing one of these units) but fully understand the $$ vs interest of doing this test. But again reminding ourselves we are seeking better fuel economy (well, extending the time between visiting the hip pocket killer fuel bowser) and losing power may be a tradeoff - realisticly how often do you drive at 80-100% of the engine’s power limit???

    Hope the above helps you in any way. Loving the updates and looking forward to more updates - Go Craig! Oh please tell me you’re not re routing your exhaust pipe into the car’s cabin just so you small the exhaust Joking!

24. 24 On June 26th, 2008, craig said:

    Ha Ha exhaust pipe into the cabin, thought about that when things weren’t so good NO, NO, just kidding!
    I am finding all this technical information very interesting to say the least and no matter what the outcome of the test I know I have learnt a great deal.
    Thanks to all that have contributed.
    All going well the test should be complete tomorrow.

    Craig

25. 25 On June 26th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Hi All,

    Thanks Eddie, I too, have been talking to some-one who knows a great deal more about Hydrolysers than I do. He is of the opinion that the whole HHO thing is pretty much nonsense, Any hydrolyser will produce some free hydrogen but the vast majority of it will be in the form of H2 as nature always seeks the lowest possible energy level. I got a talk about the relative strengths of the HH and the HO bonds and the likely mechanisms of production. Since I am way out of my depth I won’t try to repeat what was said. (I’m very likely to get it wrong) His considered opinion was that there is no easy way to manipulate a simple hydrolyser to ensure the production of so called “Brown’s Gas”.

    At the end of the discussion he asked precisely the same question I asked Jim. Where does the increased milage come from? I put it to you all again. For the Queesnlanders “Please explain???”.

    The Thylacine

26. 26 On June 26th, 2008, Ian said:

    Eddie. Hi.
    I will put my engine on a engine dyno , and ‘tune’ the hydroliser . I have explained the test I want to do earlyer. Please advise me on what you think will be the best catylist to ad to water that I can store in a container . I will atemp to build my ‘cell’ or ‘cell’ to draw a current of 30 amps. Also I might want to use the engine’s cooling system to heat the ‘cells’ to a temp just before steaming occurs. Will this have a positive efect ??. And lastly about using a sq.wave input, how much should I gain in eff. , and what freqeuncys am I going to need at 30 amps. Thanks for your great insert.
    Ian.

27. 27 On June 27th, 2008, water fuel guy said:

    HHO technology will be the next big thing, people are seeing this as a new born sience project wile the truth is that HHO is here for a long time know, and now starting to get the fuss that it deserives.

    when fuel prices keep rising, HHO technology will keep getting pupolor.

28. 28 On June 27th, 2008, Jim said:

    Eddie,
    I have read some of the information that is been on the market. There are also many vendors selling various kits for the device, as well as other service centers that will install these devices. Of course, both the vendors and the service centers, all claim that it works. Some offer basic systems and others offer them in multi-container systems strung together, similar to connecting batteries in a series circuit, which claim to offer even better results. Some of the vendors also offer the potentiometer for the MAP and many others don’t, yet still claim very significant increases in mileage without it.

    We will soon see the results of two individuals, who I feel are approaching this with an unbiased attitude. Craig’s test will apparently be using a “real-world” approach and this method certainly has its’ merits. Likewise, Ian’s approach is more “scientific” in that he plans to test it on a dyno, performing oil analysis, etc. and this method also has its’ merits. Of course, having been around Harley’s, I’ve seen the pro’s & con’s of real-world and dyno test-beds, only to have customers bring their bikes back after having them “tuned in” on a dyno, so it is sometimes a combination of the “two worlds” that leads to achieving the desired results. I really am looking forward to the results of both types of tests. If this device does what is claimed, perhaps it will provide a bit of insight into what is actually occurring and the reasons behind it.

    As I await the results of Craig’s and Ian’s test, I would only like to put forth the following for consideration and thought.

    We must always remember that theory is only an assumption of how something works and often the theory is based on a predisposed basis of current knowledge or assumed knowledge. Theories have been proven, modified and dis-proven, based on new information that is learned. Throughout history, man has found to make things that operate, without a valid known reason, therefore, others start trying to postulate the theory behind the operation, in an effort to explain the unknown. As other factors are learned, those theories also change.

    The best example I can offer is based on the theory of electronics. This theory is still argued to some extent. While most people are taught that electrons flow to the positive source (negative to positive flow), advanced engineering will follow “hole” flow (positive to negative). It’s still a theory in either case, but it still works regardless of which way you look at it. As I think back to the mid 90’s, I remember computers reaching 500Mhz processors and the speculation that the limits beyond this aren’t likely to occur due to the heat dissipation factors of the processor chips. A little smile ensues as I look at a box, no larger, no water cooling, yet running at a speed of 6 times faster than thought possible, just a few years ago. Knowledge and technology are wonderful things, even if we can’t always explain it.

    So, as we await the results of Craig’s and Ian’s own tests, should they find merit to this device, then you can postulate your own theories to explain the actual reason for the results. We can attempt to provide theories on the hypothetical possibilities, but to base the results on theory before actual tests are performed is not going to make it right or wrong. While I’m hoping to hear positive results, I’m certainly not going to get my hopes too high.

    Jim

29. 29 On June 27th, 2008, Eddie said:

    Greetings again,

    Ok working responses top to bottom.
    Hi Thyalcine -
    the basic approach for increasing mileage is covered in my orignal response using the 100 units of energy being consumed by the engine and getting 30 units of mechanical energy out (in form of motion) thus we could say roughly 30/100 gives us 30% ‘mileage’ . With the HHO generator supplementing some of the fuel energy (by 2 units) the figure of 30/(100-2) gives us 30.6% mileage - standback this is huge increase ;-). We’re only considering the fuel that we are paying for as the HHO gas fuel is ‘free’. of course these are only estimated numbers for the purpose understanding where energy is coming & going. Again only the practical tests of Craig and Ian will help us understand more.

    Hi Ian -
    Sorry Ian i do not have enough knowledge to advise what catalyst to add to the water. Though i recall Thyalcine recommended teaspoon of battery acid (which is acidic) but i have also seen sites where they add Bicarb soda (which is caustic, other end of pH scale). Personally i would avoid adding (powdery) supplements and stick with just plain demin water to avoid/minimise any minerals bonding to your electrodes and fouling their ’sizzling’ performance. As a joke you could try some aromatherepy oils see if sandlewood or rosehip is noticeablwe in the exhaust -I’m sure Criag would be interested in improving his exhaust smell (sorry Craig i couldn’t resist)
    30 AMPs holy dooly!!! Are you using arc welding cabling ;-)? Given this large amount of electical energy lets have a serious safety moment now. Another bit of info my ex uni mate offered the HHO mixture being produce is a perfect stoichimetric ratio (chemical engineering jargon) so the gas is coming off (at high rates which sounds like you are trying to produce with 30 amps) the littlest of spark from poor connection on your cabling or cabling deterioration, will ignite any free gas around, including what inside your ‘cells’ - it doesn’t need to mix with air to reach minimum flamability limits. So be very cautious about the levels of electrical energy you are using and the quantites of gas that could leak out your system, including any backfiring from the engine (less common on fuel injected cars and diesel engine you are using). The standard 1.5 - 2.5 l car engine installs (1 or 2 jam jars) shouldn’t leave signicant volumes of this explosive gas to cause this same concern.

    Boiling the water (or chilling) won’t have any benefit to increasing gas production. only current improves gas ‘conversion’. Boiling the water will however be a readily easy source for a cup of tea or coffee during breaks allowing to stay in your test bench area longer, so consider installing a Zipboil outlet ;-). Boiling water will also imply filling your container more frequently.

    Square wave output and frequency requirements - I only studied mechanical engineering and mildly passed my 2 electrical engineering subjects so I cannot give you a sensible answer, sorry. Most car/truck electrical systems run on DC but applying AC may or may not identify anything.
    Keen to hear the outcome - but please be safe and treat your set up with a fair amount of caution - always ask what can go wrong? and what can you do to protect yourself. Place a kill switch in your electrical wiring, so if things do go bang it won’t keep making gas and cause you a serious burn injury or fire damage to your property.

    ciao for now

30. 30 On June 28th, 2008, Jim said:

    Eddie/Ian
    The process REQUIRES an agent to produce the desired conductivity, as water alone will not work. This device is similar to a battery charge cycle, which also give off gases during the process. In order to provide the conductivity, you will need to add the baking soda to formulate an electrolyte (which is what is recommended in the documentation I’ve read and would be much safer). I would NOT recommend using sulfuric acid, which is used in batteries (i.e. “battery acid”, which is actually comprised of 35% sulfuric acid and 65% water). While I can not provide the information of the reaction process of stainless steel and the baking soda electrolyte, if you need the specific information on the actual process that occurs in a battery, I can certainly provide that information. So, without getting into the details, I’ll leave recommendation as noted here.

    Based on the concept that this is device is generating gases utilizing a theory similar to the charging of a battery, it requires DC to properly work. While the alternator in your auto produces AC, it is rectified into DC before being applied to the battery. You do not want to use any type of AC current (a square wave is a form of AC, which is “clipped”), as it would defeat your purpose (AC induced into a battery will kill it).

    The concept of using a 30 amp generator to force more current through the electrolyte is actually futile, as electrical theory doesn’t typically work this way. The current that is required will be determined by the resistance of the “load”. So, it doesn’t matter how much current the generator is able to provide, as long as it is large enough to supply the current required by the “load”, otherwise you will either blow a fuse or the generator would burn out. So, if the device (load) only draws 2 amps due to its’ internal resistance, you can’t make it use more by using a larger power source.

    The information I’ve read on these water/gas systems have indicated that they draw 2 amps or less, which is no more than some of the other accessories in your car (and a lot less than a cigarette lighter). As far as the wire gauge needed, again it depends on the amount of current (actually the power dissipation factor, which is determined by the voltage and current used) that the wire needs to handle. At 2 amps or less, typically you should need no more than 18guage wire and still have a large margin, to insure that the wire doesn’t overheat.

    Jim

31. 31 On June 28th, 2008, Bill Dawson said:

    Hi Craig,glad to see you are giving it a go.I recall watching a video of “Daniel Dingle” from the phillipines,and he had a toyota corolla running full time on hydrogen.He said that he needed 20000 volts to run his corolla.It was a very thorough video,and he pulled no punch’s ….my thoughts on all of this that the power from an alternator wont be enough,but how about useing the power from an “ignition coil” 14000 volts and quite efficient??? Bill (absolutely NO qualifications)

32. 32 On June 28th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Hi Eddie,

    I’ve missed something somewhere. How do you get to the Hydrolyser ADDING an extra 2 units of energy. You can’t get more energy out than you put in (as it is over unity). Go through the math again. 5 units to run the alternator x 40% = 2 units of POTENTIAL energy output to return to the engine. Return those 2 units, burn in engine. LESS IC efficiency x .3 and you have recovered 0.6 unit of the energy consumed by the Hydrolyser in the first place, still a net LOSS of 4.4 units of energy. You appear to have made an assumption which is in defiance of the second law. In your example all of this takes place within the 70% losses to ineficiencies and as such does not enter your milage calculations. How did you get it to the other side of the equation?

    If you power the alternator (you are not the first to come up with the turbo idea, but it’s a good one) from a source of energy wasted in present operations you would then have a potential gain of 5 units but this would be because you have recovered energy and not because you have improved the intrinsic efficiency in the combustion chamber. In that case you’d be much better off using a turbo to turn a very powerful alternator (you’ve got 30% of the chemical energy of the fuel traveling, unused, out the exhaust pipe, a potential doubler of milage if recovered) and including an electric motor in the drive train. (the IC/ electric Hybrid was originated by rail engineers prior to WW 1…Royce, of Rolls Royce fame built excellent dynamos and motors for that very purpose) In fact I would like to hear the reasoning of the current hybrid auto manufacturers as to why they are not pursuing that path.

    Hydrolysers do gain efficiency at higher temperatures but the pressure must be increased to keep the water liquid. In simple Hydrolysers conductivity of the water is achieved by “doping” with an electrolyte + or - doesn’t really matter. (Jim: a teaspoon of battery acid in a jam jar is so dilute you could drink it quite safely…Coke is probably more scidic) This is neccessary as pure water is an insulator. These hydrolysers are limited by the need to keep current densities down to prevent boiling and by the erosive nature of electrolytes on the electrodes. In more sophisticated elecrolysers the doping is acheived by a porous polymer membrane. Efficiency is raised because this allows the application of very much higher current densities. In our solar project hydrolyser this membrane is of the same family of membranes used in fuel cells but has a corser structure to improve fluid flow. I’m told that it costs $US800 a square metre and that our example has about 70 square metres in it. No wonder we only have it on loan. (our unit is only about 1% of the scale envisaged for commercial H2 production…it’s about the size of a small domestic refrigerator. I don’t know its power needs nor its H2 output, It is currently running off rectified [Jim is correct about the need for DC] 415V mains supply.)

    I still want to know where this extra energy/efficiency comes from?

    Ian.

    Mate, you’re playing with fire and really need to get a grip on some very basic scientific knowlege. Please, for the sake of yourself and those near and dear to you don’t bugger about with potentially explosive gases and high electrical currents without the knowlege to do so safely. That is not something for well intentioned tinkerers. I have personally witnessed a death caused by electric shock and it remains one of the most traumatic events in my 60+ years on this earth. Much of my work for the past 16 years has been in the Middle East and although I have not personally seen any of the violence,(I did see Kuwait City not too long after Saddam) I have seen more than enough photos of it to not want to get anywhere near an explosive device of any power. Look after yourself and take the time to learn.

    The Thylacine

33. 33 On June 28th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Bill

    The Internal combustion engine is just an air pump powered by presurising air by burning a fuel within a confined space and then using mechanical devices (piston/crank or vanes etc) to extract some of that energy. They can be made to run on anthing that will a) burn and b) pass throgh whatever system you’re using without stuffing it. Running a car on Hydrogen is not at all difficult and as I mentioned in a earlier post it was first documented in 1910. What we are really debating here is the source of the hydrogen. Bring it in from an externl supply and it is just another fuel. What the guys here are claiming (which I dispute) is that you can use hydrogen created by burning petrol/diesel in an engine and then get additional energy by adding the hydrogen you’ve generated back through the same engine. Such a claim is contrary to the Laws of Thermodynamics yet these guys seem to think that they’ve found a way around them.

    I don’t know anything about “Danial Dingle” but intuition leads me to assume that he is one of the scores of charlatans currently trying to make a quick buck out of the gullible. Wth fuel prices soaring it is the disadvantaged and less knowlegable who fall prey to these bastards with their fancy unscientific gizmos. If Dan is merely running his Corolla on externally derived H2 then he is simply running it on an alternative fuel. If he is claiming to run it on hydrogen produced by the engine itself then he is a fraud. His voltage claims appear to be completely irrelevant and (to my mind) reinforce the probablility of fraud.

    The simplicity of getting an engine to run on H2 is illustrated by one of my parental “war stories”

    When my daughter was studying for her BSc. She and her two younger brothers (then still in high school) successfully got our old 8 HP ride-on mower Briggs and Stratton to run on Hydrogen by generating it through adding broken up fins from a a crashed trail bike head (aluminium) to battery acid in a plastic bottle, stoppered with a bit of wet rag and running a short length of garden hose into the air filter of the mower. (they had apparently grown tired of just “popping” the H2 and wanted something more adventurous) I was alerted to their actions by a) the sound of a runnng lawnmower…not something they normally showed much interest in and b) their youngest sister seeking me out to “dob” on them. The mower reportedly started on about the 5th pull and sputtered to a stop from fuel exhaustion about 30 seconds after my arrival on the scene. On one hand I was pleased with their experiment but on the other I was pretty pissed off because the “doner” head was not *that* badly damaged and could have gone back on the bike. They had used all my supplies of battery acid and we live(d) 80K from town, and are off the power grid (then solar, now waste oil/kero mix diesel) I had 48 ex telecom batteries to tend and battery acid was an essential commodity of our existence. Plus they had shortened a fairly new garden hose. At the time there was no fuel for the mower (all in the tanks of the trail bikes, additionally the mower’s fuel line was doing service on one of the bikes as well) That it started so easily is probably because H2 has a very wide stoichiometric (burn) range from abour 5% to about 74% when mixed with air. The kids were too startled and it did not run for long enough to conduct any experiments like throttling let alone power output. Besides, despite my pride, I had to maintain the position of a pissed off parent over their appropriation of illicit materials.

    The Thylacine

34. 34 On June 28th, 2008, Jim said:

    Let’s first consider that the alternator drag on the engine is not a major factor and it is basically compensated for in the design of the auto. It’s basic purpose is to keep the battery maintained at full charge. It normally has more capacity than necessary to do its’ job. So, this is actually a moot point. The battery is supplying the power for the engine and all of the accessories and these are also factored into the design of the auto, with more capacity than is needed, which also allows for the consumer to add other components, which may range from radar detectors, custom stereos to braking systems for trailers with little detriment to the life of the battery (to clarify: while it will shorten the overall life, it is marginal).

    Before I am chided on the above statements, I will also concur that the faster the power is drawn from the battery the more current will have to be restored by the alternator. However, the overall effect on the engine to overcome the drag is marginal and the resulting gas consumption is also marginal.

    Now, if this water4gas device only draws a nominal current as indicated (~2 amps or less), yet it produces the gas which delays spark (such as premium grade fuels) and adds additional power, then it increases the efficiency of the output power of the engine. This is not unlike scavenging gases back through the air filter intake to re-burned.

    Of course, we are all hypothesizing the potential theories and as I previously stated, it is basically irrelevant until we have more information. We should be getting some of this information very soon (from Craig).

    In regards to Ian’s tests, I’m not sure where he stands in his testing, but I would recommend sticking with the instructions as provided for these systems, rather than modifying. It will provide more useful information for analysis and reduce potential risks. I certainly wouldn’t increase the voltage (which is what would be required to increase the current), as this would also increase the danger level, as well as heat which would possible cause boiling the water out of the system quicker. While it may induce more gas, it may also induce more water vapor (steam from increased heat) and actually produce more problems than you were hoping to solve. Keep in mind, in any type of design, you have certain limits to maintain, in order to achieve the desired results. Just as increasing the jet size in a carburetor will richen the mixture, if you overdo it, it will only drown the spark and the engine won’t run.

    However, I do question the teaspoon of sulfuric acid as the appropriate amount and why this would be better than the baking soda (as recommended). I understand why it is used in a battery, how much is used, and how it processes with the metals utilized. However, I don’t know that it would have the same effect with stainless steel and other effects it may cause.

    As far as drinking a teaspoon of sulfuric acid in a glass of water, I’ll stick with the Coke. I’m certainly not going to confuse acidity in Coke to that of sulfuric acid. I can spill a whole lot of Coke on my jeans, throw them in the wash and they’ll be just fine, while that tiny drop of sulfuric acid is going to leave a hole. While I’ve had the displeasure of swallowing gas once (my first attempt at siphoning, when I was a kid), it didn’t kill me either, but the taste was lousy and my stomach certainly wasn’t up to par for a few days, and I don’t think the sulfuric acid is going to be to my liking, either. You’re welcome to drink all you want. I’ll stick to Coke… Thanks.

    Jim

35. 35 On June 28th, 2008, Ian said:

    Hi again. Thanks for the advice. I am not totaly cleuless. I work as an electrician at an opencast diamond mine. So I have some idea on electricity. So to get more gas I’ll need more electrical input? To ‘draw’ more electrical input (current) I need to add more cells? So the more cells the more current and thus more gas. I gues the more people I can get to piss in the amazon the bigger the effect wil be. About the sq wave , I have built a ‘voltage control’ that when run from a battery gives a sq wave like input on an scope. With just the positive ‘breaking’ on and of in pulses. Controled by a potentiometer. I am aiming for just a proven 10% gain in mileage. Just 1 of our big machines use 60 liters of diesel per hour. That means saving my salary on 1 machine in a week running 24 hours a day. 10% may seem very little but in the bigger picture it looks very attractive

36. 36 On June 28th, 2008, Ian said:

    Ps. Bill the car’s coil may be very high in volts but its low in energy. There way to little current to make the procces work. I think.? Oja and I will be building a bubbler as a wet flash back arrestor. I am also going to build my cells with stainless steel containers , if my first test has positive results. But now I am gona be a kid and try to make water go boom. If you guys dont hear from me again you’ll know that water goes boom in a big way.
    Cheers.

37. 37 On June 28th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    Jim

    As I said all you need is an electrolyte. It doesn’t matter if it’s acidic or alkaline…both will work. However you don’t want the water too conductive or the electricity will take the easy way from one electrode to the other and not split any water.
    Also as before hydrolysers operate on a power density.
    Think of an electrolyser opperating in electroplating mode, where the desired result is to deposit the material from one electrode on the other. The larger the area you need to plate and the thicker you want the plate film to be, the higher current you need to apply to get the desired result. Same goes in electrolyser mode except that you want to keep youe electrodes intact and optimise gas production.The AREA of your electrodes are a big factor in your efficiency. but at 2 amps you’re not going to produce very much gas at all, regardless of hydrolyser efficiency.It doesn’t matter if H2 production is “under the alternator’s radar” or included in other factors you can NEVER get more enery out of what is produced than you put in. A closed circuit engine can NEVER produce its own fuel. Even if you are talking less than 2% of the engines output (the fraction doesn’t matter. You can’t do it THE UNIVERSE doesn’t work that way. You guys all seem to have good jobs and are probably nice to your wives and kids and all that, Why can’t you accept that you are ALWAYS going to lose energy in a hydrolyser. Learn to live with it!

    A fuel that delays the spark??? Spark comes from the ignition and in modern cars it is timed by a computer. Do you mean delays flame front travel?…an entirely different thing. The evidence appears to be that H2 increases flame front travel speed and if it does anything the burn may be more complete. That means more energy and less unburnt fuel out the exhaust valve. A gain in efficiency.(though the modern diesel car is pretty darned good and approachng the theoretical maximum Carnot Efficiency of an IC engine @ 25% (not the 30% Eddie and I have been talking about).
    Any gain in efficiency MUST COME from an improvement in burn quality. Hydrogen is a lower energy fuel in an IC engine than petrol (you can’t fit enough of it in to get any advantage from its high energy potential) so it CANNOT come from the simple combustion of hydrogen,

    Premium grade fuels work because they contain anti knock suppressants…it used to be tetra ethyl lead but the greenies decided that that was too dirty for the environment and we have been on the recieving end of much oil company experimentation ever since. Anti knock agents allow the use of higher compression ratios, a simple mechanical means of extracting more power from an engine. Knock is also known as detonation or dieseling and occurs because the compressing of the fuel/air charge causes the temperature to exceed the ignition temperature of the fuel. In a diesel this is controlled by sprayng the fuel into the already hot compressed air and the fuel burns. In a petrol engine since the fuel and air is already mixed, once ignition temperature is reached the whole lot goes up at once and if repeated often enough the rapid destruction of the engine is ensured.

    If you go back to Eddies first example where he concluded that you had 30 units of energy available for driving the car. To get a 50% improvement in milage you have to get 45 units of energy available to drive the car. Since the IC engine is only 30% efficient (for this example only, I opened an old text book and it is not really that good) you actually need an 85% improvement in the overall efficiency of the engine. Pro rata it down to any improvement goal you desire. Now tell me how you are going to almost double the power output of your engine by taking 2 amps out of the alternator.

    Once again I challange you all to refute this science. You are chasing a pie in the sky and I’m rolling on the floor laughing.

    Incidently Jim take a look on U tube, Top Gear, where they demonstrate that how you drive is more important than what you drive. They demonstrate a V8 BMW achieving better milage than a Toyota Prius over exactly the same course and at exactly the same speed.

    QED
    The Thylacine.

38. 38 On June 28th, 2008, Jim said:

    Thylacine
    You are correct, what I said and what I meant wasn’t worded correctly, as far as the burn rate is concerned.

    You continue to evaluate the current from the electrical system as being directly proportional to the operation of the engine and this is completely erroneous, as they have little to do with each other. That is where you are missing the point. You are not converting electricity into power to directly drive the engine. It is being used to drive other components that provide cause and effect. This can also be illustrated in the way the battery provides 12volts DC to the coil, which steps up the voltage to cause a spark to ignite the gas in the combustion chamber. The electrical spark is not running the engine, but only providing a catalyst to achieve the desired result. While using a 24volt battery to drive the same coil will increase the voltage that delivers the spark, it will not make the gas burn hotter or better or quicker.

    When you speak of efficiency of energy, you seem to imply that you can not get more than you put in. In that respect (with today’s knowledge), I will agree. However, man has continued to find more efficient means of increasing the efficiency of energy in many areas of science. As I pointed out above, this has already been demonstrated to some extent by the computer you are currently using. We can also see how this works to some extent by building engines with more cylinders, with smaller combustion chambers to some extent and other means that engineers have tried to harness efficiency, such as computer controlled ignition systems.

    Keeping in mind, that energy is not consumed, but only changes form, it is a matter of harnessing those changes to provide greater efficiency. If we take your views, that nothing can be done beyond our present level of knowledge, then it only indicates that mankind has reached its’ limits. This is certainly where we part minds, as you seem to feel that our current level of theory is complete, however we have not begun to tap the resources of our universe or harnessing the power that is around us. I’m not a sci-fi “nut” by any means, but I’m sure that man will eventually find the way to traverse space at warp speed and it won’t be from using the concepts of our limited knowledge we currently possess. Keep in mind, Ben Franklin didn’t harness electricity, he only help determine that it existed in a particular form. Do you think he ever considered building a computer, much less a calculator? The Greeks thought of building wings like a bird and Da Vinci may have better conceived the possibility of flight, but did he really expect to fly to the moon using his design? Many people thought of such concepts as “pie in the sky,” as well. Just as Einstein’s peers tried to prove him wrong, only to concede to many of his theories, science has been a combination of experimentation and gaining knowledge, and the knowledge has often come to us after the experiment, in an effort to explain the results from the experimentation. A closed mind only limits the possibilities of progress. “What if” has provided mankind the accomplishments that we see today and striving to improve upon, for tomorrow.

    As I’ve stated, I’ll wait for the results of the experiment, before passing judgment. If it doesn’t work, then we can assume that the HHO theory is flawed in this case. If it does work, then we can hypothesis the theory of the effects.

    Ian,
    The “positive breaking pulses” are basically an “un-filtered” DC and is not the best source for powering a device that is requiring direct current (DC). The “effective voltage” (technically referred to as EMS) of the “positive square wave” is much less than the “peak-voltage” that you see on the o’scope. I’ll spare everyone the formulas that demonstrate the Peak vs. EMS and see if I can put this into a simpler form of explanation. One of the effects a battery has on such un-filtered DC is that the battery will act as a filter and smooth out the waveform. However, this on-off effect will also take much longer for the battery to charge, as it is not a constant source of current, but only delivered in short durations. This is why alternators have a full-bridge rectifier built into it… to also “flip” the negative going pulse into a positive output, thereby reducing the “off” time and deliver a higher EMS voltage to the load. Of course, utilizing a filter-capacitor will smooth the pulses and increase the EMS voltage, thereby increasing the efficiency of the voltage output. So, if you are seeing a 15V peak, you are only getting approximately 10V EMS (depending on capacitive filtering and other design factors).

    Jim

39. 39 On June 29th, 2008, Jim said:

    Once again, the brain cells aren’t quite up to par, and I’m apparently trying to type faster than I’m thinking… please insert EMF (electro-motive force) in place of “EMS” in the above electronic theories.

40. 40 On June 29th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    A very big THANK YOU Jim. for acknowlegeing that this relies on a *belief* in something outside the parameters of human experience. ie from my perspective it is from Woo Woo land and has as much validity as Santa Clause and pixies. (both of which make a contribution to our world and culture but do not physically exist.)

    As one trained in an engineering disipline I am extremely reluctant to invoke the supernatural (in fact I NEVER have) when existing knowlege can do the job. If I am presented with an apparent paradox I re-examine my presumptions. I regard the dressing of paranormal argument in the vestments of science as a supreme act of immorality. (Intelligent Designer’s take note) I contend that the phenomena under discussion here DOES lie within soundly established scientific principles. Everything has an explanation and in my lifetime’s experience (I’m 61) it is the supernatural which has been on the losing end of every single disputed point. It seems that that many of the contributors here are either ignorant of or choosing to ignore basic demonstrated knowlege. The only thing that falls outside that knowlege in this instance are unsubstianted claims. If you can’t explain it you either haven’t got your fact sorted or you haven’t got enough facts. In this case we DO have enough facts and the issue was answered almost century ago. QED

    Not long ago, sometine late last year, a participant at a world wide conference into genetics being held in London asked his scientific peers the question of whether they should be looking for an irrationality gene. He said that he asked the question because he was at a loss to explain the apparent human preference for irrational rather than rational solution. I’m with him.

    Thank you for engaging in the debate.

    The Thylacine

41. 41 On June 29th, 2008, The Thylacine said:

    A quick addendum,

    Please do not confuse disagreement and insistance on scepticism with having a closed mind. On the contrary it is the basis for understanding of nature.
    Seeking answers to the fundamental questions of How? What? When? Where? and Why? prevents us from falling into the trap of fundamentalistic presumption, a very bleak existence. No disrespect is intended in issuing the challenge to explain an assertion. I would argue that giving some-one the opportunity to do such a thing is, in fact, showing them considerable respect.
    The Thylacine

42. 42 On June 30th, 2008, Jim said:

    Thylacine
    I don’t know where you got your concept, of what you thought I was “acknowledging that this lies outside the parameters of human experience”. My statements were that this may lay outside our current level of “knowledge.”

    In addition, I haven’t confused anything, as your continual denial of any potential benefits are presumptuous, based on your own predetermined level of existing knowledge.

    I have stated my skepticism, yet also indicated that I will always keep an open mind, as opposed to your continued attacks on others as being “ignorant” and “wasting their time,” which I found to be a bit egotistical. As history has also proven by Edison’s own experimentations with the light bulb and his attitude to continue after presumed failures, which led to his famous statement, “I have not failed 1000 times, I’ve only found 1000 ways that do not work” (or something to that effect, depending on the source). Of course, lack of knowledge in developing the lightbulb did not keep him from pursuing the task and experimenting with thousands of items, from platinum and carbon to carbonized bamboo, peacock feathers, cotton and many other compositions in his effort to develop a long-lasting light bulb.

    Of course, it was Tesla who observed Edison’s experiments as wanton, and was quoted as saying, “His method was inefficient in the extreme, for an immense ground had to be covered to get anything at all unless blind chance intervened and, at first, I was almost a sorry witness of his doings, knowing that just a little theory and calculation would have saved him 90 percent of the labor.” Yet, it is Edison that is credited with the most progress in the development of the incandescent bulb, despite his disregard for the “knowledge of science” as established in his own day.

    As I stated, I do not rely solely on our presumed knowledge of today, as there are many things yet to be learned. Man’s accomplishments are due to experimentation and often it is by accident that some things come to light, and only then, do the “scientists” try to determine the theory behind the practical application.

    If those that sought to proceed with this experiment, only listened to your “wisdom and guidance”, they would have already quit before getting started. The philosophical stance of NLP (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_NLP) can certainly apply in many circumstances, as evidenced by Edison and many, many others throughout history.

    It is I, who has continued to argue, “I would argue that giving some-one the opportunity to do such a thing is, in fact, showing them considerable respect”, against your claims towards those “too ignorant to understand” what they attempt to do.

    Jim

43. 43 On June 30th, 2008, USA Jim said:

    Well, what an interesting blog about HHO. By way of introduction, I’d like to chime in here a few thoughts all this has provoked. Here is a little of my back story.

    I appreciate that my audience is likely a bunch of Aussies (g’day mates, hey throw another shrimp on the barbie…). Here’s a little perspective from the other side of the world, go grab some tucker, looks like I’m going to be long-winded.

    As gas prices are now readily hitting $4/gallon here (here is in the USA, yeah, those guys sandwiched right between Mexico and Canada)…that’s up about 25% in the first two quarters of ‘08), so we’ve all taking notice and we’re all generally bitchin’ up a storm about how the hell we’re going to get our gas-guzzling SUVs from station to station without draining our big fat retirement accounts or starting another war in some other part of the oil-rich world to gain access to their limited natural resources so we don’t have to use ours. Do I have to mention were about to elect a new president this fall? So either way, Bush is out. It’s going to come down to Republican vs. Democrat, and the whole country is pretty much fed up with Republican right now, and willing to leap blindly at any kind of change.

    You know, we are only 6% of the world’s population, but we consume 25% of the energy, how did that happen? I heard on the news some of our bigger personal vehicles now cost $110 to fill up, and the price of trucking goods to market is hitting us across the board at the grocery stores and other retail areas, ouch.

    Hitting the $100 a tankful is a strong psychological hurdle here at the pumps. Our $100 bill has a picture of Ben Franklin on it, and he is certainly rolling over in his grave right about now. Bye bye Ben. Some of us have resorted to filling up more often, both to keep the psychological impact in check, as well as catch the lowest prices we can. It seems like it’s a dime a week more per gallon as time goes by. My 24 mpg Honda costs me about $50 to fill. It used to cost only $30 when I got it 5 years ago.

    Now I piss and moan when I have to drive my kids around to visit their friends on the spur of the moment without combining it with some other trip, like going to the market, etc. Commuting to work is a joke around here (lots of congestion and traffic jams), so there’s a strong push on to adopt a 10-hr/day, 4 day work week, just to save 1 day/week of commuting. That will probably pass by popular vote, and would represent a substantial 20% savings upon adoption.

    My oldest daughter is now 16, so she is lobbying for a driver’s license/learner’s permit, and a car of her own (like I have the cash for that…? Go get a job, dear, like I did, if you want to drive.). In lieu of a car of her very own, she would accept that we ‘just’ get a new car, since borrowing our ten year old 1999 Pontiac Montana minivan (140K miles on the odo) that has a bum fuel gauge has its downsides…’you know it’s not safe driving without knowing how much fuel is in the tank’ e.g. read as ‘I might run out of gas before I can tell you it’s time to fill’er up). That learner’s permit is going to mean more to her than learning how to operate a car, it’s going to be a wake-up call into the out of pocket expenses of owning and operating one. Cost to fix the gauge, about another $400 I don’t have right now.

    Anyway I, too, am a Mechanical Engineer (and an inventor of sorts), so I stumbled upon this HHO device thingy a day or so ago, and have been doing my due diligence, since saving “25-50%” on fuel would be not only great for me personally, but if it was true, I would start getting these things mass-produced in China, and sell them at Wal-Mart (a mass merchandizing retailer in the US) for $39 a pop and become a bagillionaire over-night. I could see even franchising the installments like a Jiffy Lube service, and with approx. 250 million cars in the US (Wikipedia, 2005 estimate), it would take no time to turn a hefty profit, even at a measly 1% market penetration.

    But alas, I am the practical ME, and I have something of a moral compass when it comes to passing along apparent scam technology to the ill-informed masses, so I am doing my homework. My career since leaving college in 1980 has been in consumer products, so if this is a viable product or process, then I’d like to get on board so I can line my pockets with lots of retirement cash, if you know what I mean, and ultimately become a philanthropist like Bill Gates. Unfortunately, doesn’t look like the get rich quick scheme I’ve been looking for.

    That being said, I stumbled upon this blog after an Internet search of “HHO stoichiometry”. I definitely buy into the argument that:
    (1) an IC engine, even of modest displacement (1500cc) processes a tremendous amount of air. At 2000 rpm, that’s 3000 liters/min. I don’t see how any HHO generator I’ve seen yet can appreciably contribute to any significant “free” energy input even at 5 liters/minute generation rate, regardless of the energy quality or fuel/air ratio, lean or rich…pissing in the Amazon was a great analogy on that one. Seems like you wouldn’t even notice the ripple.
    (2) I loved the suggestion that driving more conscientiously will produce big gains in fuel economy. I drove a 1600cc 1971 Datsun 510 for 6 years, and when I installed a simple $5 vacuum gauge and started practicing some conservatism on the gas pedal, I did realize a substantial gain in fuel economy (it was a manual transmission too, so when I could it was in neutral a percentage of the time…and rarely used my brakes.). People just don’t have the time or mechanical interest to turn their driving activity into a hobby or pastime; they just want to get in the car and go (fast & cheaply).
    (3) In this day and age, you’d think more folks would car pool, especially in our area. With the Internet and proliferation of cell phones, you’d think there would be more people (or services) capitalizing on “hooking people up” with others going their way. Between just two people driving 50% of the time, there has to be a really big savings in fuel, not to mention wear and tear on the car. Net convenience and freedom notwithstanding, and having to put up with some road partnering, there would also be the added benefit of easing half the cars off the road, which would lighten the traffic jams and raise the speed average to something more than just a crawl, a speed which has to be very inefficient to our gross fuel economy as a society. No