68nova200

iTrader: (2)

is there a how to yet?

bamaboy22

shuuuuuuuu dont ask that... u will be bashed by the lil science guys who are douches

selfinfliction

it takes alot of hho to make a change in the mileage, the stuff works though. one dude i work with is running a system with 6 containers in his truck and said his mileage is about 20% better when it's running. his system is pretty cool looking, i'll try to get a pic of it before he pulls it off. (hes switching to biodeisel in july cause it only costs about 50 cents a gallon to make)

bamaboy22

bump

lil_kano

I think the problem is that the lil science guys are looking at too big of a perspective. Yes we understand not a lot of Hydrogen is being produced because of insubstantial amperage but using less water and some sort of stimulus like baking soda is enough to produce some sort of gas saving. I mean if I get an additional 10-25mpg for a time charge of about $60 with no repercussions down the road I would be happy with that. I'm not trying to run my car 100% on hydrogen so I don't care if its not 100% accurate.

I'll be making one of these for my father-in-laws '88 (I believe) chevy truck and then one for my dad's '04 dodge dakota, then one for the balt...

bamaboy22

thats what im saying. starting old and small first then mine

lightinbalt

i really would like to see a how you on this, i get how it works but dont get how to make one...

TVS_SS

the whole problem is that you wont get any MPG improvement.. You wont see any gas saving other than in your head..

If you see 10-25mpg improvement, this would instantly be adopted on every production vechicle tomorrow. The fact of the matter is.. automotive engineers are typically smarter than sketchy backyard mechanics that are good at marketing their product. Shall i mention the "tornado" yet again? Or how about the 200mpg carburetor?

Now you say you dont want to run it on 100% hydrogen.. so you want to run it on say 70% gas and 30% hydrogen? Why dont you take this to another extreme and run your car on 70% gas and 30% diesel? tell me why that doesnt work? If you cannot, then i am afraid you cannot tell me that 30% hydrogen will work..

I guess i dont care if you buy it or not.. i was only trying to save you a few bucks. but unfortuantely it doesnt matter.. and i wont feel bad when your money was wasted.

Cobalt_SSTuner

iTrader: (1)

so **** all your science bull ****. Did this actually work or no.

bamaboy22

dude dont post on here if you ******* dont want to help. idk if you think trying to tell us not to do it is helping us because without proof of it **** off

TVS_SS

ugh.. proof that it "doesnt work".. i like the directive around here.. you should be looking for proof that it "does work"

anyhow, i'll let you be. no sweat off my back.. lol

lil_kano

well im not goign to be like others and say GTFO! lol. but i would like to discuss a little. I love the convos. anyway. So my poitn of only running, let's say this 30% Hydrogen and 70% gas is because the car just is made to be ran on it. I believe it does work as i've seen it work from people who have had it installed at a local shop where one of my very good friends work. He actually builds drag 1.8Ts all day so i truste what he says and shows me.

Now im not a science engineer or anything but I have a very good background of mechanics and the way a motor works/runs. Now i don't see why this wouldn't work and onyl see scientific numbers of what would theoretically happen if say an exact quantity wher to be put into use. But who was to say that condition or something of the sort in the engne bay or may be even the mixture of fuel and hydrogen where to be what causes the better gas mileage.

now as far as diesel alternative, well those cars already exist. however i don't see any hydrogen cars sitting at the dealership so that does't realy fit into the argument. So if there are cars that already run on that fuel why try to integrate that into a gasoline based car? Now i know diesel is more effecient as far as MPG but its also more expensive and still causes carbon fumes (i may be wrong on that last part about the carbon but i've seen those trucks that spit black smoke everywhere).

I realy don' see how people can say this doesn't work when people, who are not selling this product, are claiming the gas mileage gains. Now on the other hand I love how the gas companies have control of everything especially advertising and the media. Do you know the story of the Ev1 and other hydrogen based car that were in testing? I mean who do think realy wanted those out of the picture? the owners of the car? heck no! It was more probably, than any other explanation, the government and the gas companies/owner who are trying to make thier buck and making that buck while they can because when that fuel runs out they will be living comfortable enough to make thier own freaking hydrogen car.

so yeah i don't see why, atleast, trying to make this new technology work is such a bad and horrible thing. I mean i would love to see the other alternative these so called scientists have for us. At least we're trying to make this thing work and its not going to have any reprocusion that our current alternatives have. because geuss what? electricity is created by gasoline ran generators which means yet another gaslonine consumption for us to worry about.

so yes i will support this to the end. Until this can be proven 100% pointless and 100% not beneficial for a MPG gain.

cakeeater

ok listen...I would usually say the proof is in the pudding, but i'm going to tell you instead that the proof is in the SCIENCE. This is not some newfangled technology that defies the laws of physics. we are telling you it is not going to work because it is NOT GOING TO WORK. multiple people have already explained to you why it won't work. Now if you want to trust the internet let me just save you some time. www.turbonator.com....huge mpg increases and power increases for cheap! now, make a thread on that and i can assure you at least one person will have a friend that it "worked" for. If you really want to get into trusting the internet some more,
http://www.bfro.net/

there you go.

and to the person above me the majority of electricity in this country is generated using coal...then comes nuclear power i believe, then hydro? could be wrong on the order, but gasoline isn't even close to the top. It's cool that you are trying to find an alternative source, but seriously think about this. If it actually worked there would already be a multi-billion dollar company backing it and it would be in so many new vehicles it's insane. now if you want to go into some conspiracy theory and say that means nothing, look at the science behind it. Not to be an ass, but if you really can't believe it wont work without trying it yourself, i can easily find you some blueprints for a flux capacitor online.

lil_kano

^^ hydrogen is in the water which isn't that easily broken of hence the need for hydrolisis (sp). and there is plenty of water around. I get what your sayin and i read the chemistry about a few posts back but my simple argument is that it doesn't realy add up especially since those doing the calculations are basing thier numbers off of certain figures that can easly be changed be things such as heat, amoutn of water, additives (catalyts), etc. so i mean the numbers, scientifically can be worng as well. I took chemistry in college but i am by no means a chemist but i can say i have learned one thing; real world chemistry is different from chemistry done on paper.

As far a conspiracy, thats not realy what i was talking about. I was more goign toward the thought of why would automobile and gas companies want to allow this technology to progress; they won't make money. Thats like cigarette companies making a cure/reversal for nictoine addicts. Seriously, lie i mentioned before the EV1 cars didn't disappear because the owners didn't like them or thought they worked it was obviously (not proven but HIGhLY likely) the cause of gas companies involvemnt. I mean how much cars do you think dealerships have in inventory; do you think they want to lose out on what they could make off of those car sales if they would have to get rid of them when the car manufacturers roll out with hydrogen cars. Thats a total loss for them and as a company i find it very unlikely to make that desicion...

cakeeater

So you think because the car may not want it (which is very inaccurate imo...keep in mind that this "total loss" entails that nobody buys the cars that haven't sold yet...meaning they all buy the brand new models that cost the same to make and they could probably charge 50% more on) that none of the major aftermarket manufacturers or automotive anything for that matter would go for it? If the cigarette companies made a cure for nicotine addicts AND a cure for cancer, your idea might be similar, but how many people do you think wouldn't smoke if there was a cure for cancer? probably a lot less than now. That's like saying it hurts car companies to make hybrids...total opposite. Yes actual results can be skewed from theoretical results, but im assuming you studied percent error somewhat in college chemistry...It is very VERY unlikely that the results would be more than 10% or so off. This just isn't going to yield the results you guys are looking for.

btw notice my question about how he calculated how much gasoline he used was never answered...

Badju587

There are still a lot of unanswered questions.

Hydrolysis is not what's being used. Hydrolysis is when a compound reacts with water. Electrolysis is what's happening here. Hydrolysis is thermodynamically irreversible.

You're right, the equations are wrong, which is part of the point. We highballed, a lot, giving the original claim the benefit of the doubt in as many places as we could find. We assumed a perfect universe, made the gases more dense by using 0 celsius instead of engine operating temperature, didn't take into account thermal losses, inefficiencies in the engine, any inefficiencies in the generating system itself, etc... all of which would have a negative impact on the energy yield.

When you said there were other variables we weren't considering, you made a few assumptions, chief among them being that those variables, under conditions present in a car engine (instead of the conditions we used), would help rather than hurt:

- More heat only matters as much as you want to thin out your Hydrogen. Gases expand as they get hotter. Less gas, less boom, less benefit. You want more gas per unit volume, not less. The calculations were done at STP, which is one atmosphere and 0 celsius. You'll never see that inside the engine bay, which means less-dense gas in our non-perfect engines.

- Amount of water matters, but without increasing reaction speed (using more amps), you've only given yourself more available HHO, sitting around waiting to be electrolyzed.

Add to that that the electrolysis process is the most efficient at 1.83 volts, you're looking at a max. of 256 watts out of our alternators (after you convert the 12v output to 1.83v, which is do-able, and give all 140 amps from the alternator to the electrolysis machine). At an energy requirement of 3.425 kWH per quart, you'll be there a while.

- Catalysts do increase reaction speed, but we've already seen a case where we burn the entire stock in one or two hours (the only way to get a good amount of HHO energy), which is way more than our alternators can reasonably provide.

Besides, we're talking about nearly-pure water here, which has a huge electrical resistance. The reason Ocean water and tap water are so conductive is the addition of salt (a catalyst), and in fresh water other impurities that are present. You're adding the catalyst to get the conductivity back. Want to use impure water and a catalyst to speed it up even more? Engine gets nasty gunk in it, and you're out a car.

- Some posts (not yours) are assuming that the volume of HHO is significantly different from the volume of air. They are slightly different volumes given the same number of moles, but we're talking HHO is less than 0.2 liters/mole less dense thanks to weaker VDW forces. Gas is gas is gas, it occupies very nearly the same volume no matter what's in it. The number of liters of air displaced is almost exactly the same as the number of liters of HHO entering the system, which is an extremely small amount, almost insignificant in terms of the amount of air the car ingests over the same amount of time.

The auto companies would make money hand over fist if this worked. All they care about is selling cars. Besides, it's easy to install, they can just outfit the current fleet with them. Mass-produced, it would increase the price of the car less than 300 bucks. If it worked, that increase would be recouped quickly by the consumer. Plus, 60+ MPG out of a gasoline-powered 4-banger? GM would push Toyota into bankruptcy with those numbers. The Prius would literally be worthless compared to an HHO Hybrid. The oil companies don't care, they'd either up the price to compensate for lower demand, or they'd just sit back and watch all of us go back to our normal driving habits, and negate any savings we might have otherwise pocketed.

No one who's testing has gotten back to share their findings.

bamaboy22

I want to see your proof. Untill then **** off

Badju587

I'd love to see proof too. Any word on the testing from Psykostevo or the OP would be welcome. Right now the proof in favor of it looks like little more than youtube.

We're not telling anyone not to do it, in fact I want them to.

TVS_SS

lol.. wow, did you even understand a word in the post above? Do you know anything about chemistry?

thank you for the entertainment... the ignorance is amusing!

umrdyldo

iTrader: (1)

Well I sucked ass at chemistry.

And so do most everyone else sorry.

We need results to show it works or it doesn't. That's it.

Omega_5

Dude... it's a scam until otherwise proven....
Quit getting all butt hurt over it....

Badju587

Good stuff, the chemistry was never meant to say "This flat-out doesn't work", or "We're smarter than you so listen to us". It was meant to show everyone why the skeptics don't believe it, and to share our knowldege. I'm a scientist, verifiable proof is the be-all-end-all. Note the word verifiable though. Anyone who's saying it doesn't work, that's their conclusion based on whatever data they've gathered. I'm in the "I don't believe it" camp. That leaves open the possibility for changing my mind if someone presents a solid conclusion backed up by some darn good data.

The testers are walking into the realm of the scientific method here. Hypothesize, test, evaluate, re-test, evaluate again, conclude. Present results, get head kicked in for a while by peers, and defend thyself. If the results don't stand up to scrutiny, or there's something that was missed, go back and re-design the test to account for the problems. Rinse and repeat until a verifiable conclusion is reached.

The scientific community does this day-in and day-out, anyone who really wants to prove something welcomes skeptics.

Just saw this.

If you're talking about the videos on YouTube and the claims made elsewhere, look closer. Are they backed up by solid data? Did anyone really test it, or did they slap it in and use a healthy dose of confirmation bias?

Psykostevo

We finished that 128oz generator, but that is physically too big for my engine bay, or for the bay of a solstice for that matter, so now we need to make one that fits. At first we didn't expect to be able to make it work so we didn't give everything full consideration. Now that we know it works we will have to make it fit to see if it actually functions as intended.

lil_kano

I see the point of all of you who are against it and im not trying to convince you otherwise I would just like to see a way for this thing to work I mean the numbers, yes, don't add up but hydrogen powered cars have existed and I believe that this can be made to work some how.

I mean instead of scientist (not you guys in particular) finding all the negatives behind it why not find a way to make it work.

And I still stand behind my thought of car makers and gas comapnies and thier plot to keep this technology in the ground because as you said they want to make thier money and make it now. So if they can keep this hiden for a few more years whie they mae thier money and the reserves dry out then they will. No one still hasn't explained why the EV1 and other similar cars dissapeared. I mean seriously its obvious that they were disgarded because soeone somwhere didn't want competition and felt like getting rid of it early.

now my point stand that yes the current kit and ideas maybe futile but i don't see why they can't be made to work or these scientists show a way that can make the idea work.

Badju587

That's what I'm talking about . Nice to hear on the progress. Post her up, along with your testing method, once it's done.

Hydrogen cars do indeed exist. The Honda FCX though, stores 5kg of Hydrogen at 5,000 PSI, and injects it at 5-10 times atmospheric pressure. The compression's different, the engine's different, nearly everything's different. They make 100 horsepower off of three orders of magnitude more gas.

Not totally seeing what the EV1 has to do with HHO other than the conjecture can be made that "the man" is keeping both down.

I'm not bashing your opinion. Actually I'm not bashing anything. If someone finds a way to make it work, so much the better. We all benefit from that.