Water 4 Gas

Hindmost said:
Water 4 gas seems to be the ultimate wack-a-mole thingy...it keeps popping up and we keep wacking it back down. Expensive oil will continue to bring out the woo and we will have to keep dragging out law one and law two.

glenn
Click to expand...

On the plus side, the economy is doing so badly that the price of oil might drop simply because we can't afford to buy anything. Including woo woo water4gas inventions.

That's a positive. Right? Right?

*little scared of the economy right now*
 
GreyICE said:
On the plus side, the economy is doing so badly that the price of oil might drop simply because we can't afford to buy anything. Including woo woo water4gas inventions.

That's a positive. Right? Right?

*little scared of the economy right now*
Click to expand...

I fear the price drop will yield a false impression that all is well. But I guess my oil bill will be cheaper this year.

glenn
 
King of the Americas said:
Once an engine is running, it is producing 'surplus' electricity.

You can jump a car off that has a dead battery, and once it is running, is begins charging said battery.

If your car is already producing 'surplus electricity', why NOT use it to create a little H and O, that once ported into the intake, INCREASES engine performance?

We aren't producing more energy, we are just using what we have more efficiently...
Click to expand...
Jumping in without having read through the thread, so I may be repeating: your car is not producing much surplus electricity. Once the battery is charged, the voltage regulator acts to reduce the alternator's output to just what is needed for maintenance. If you turn on lights, or add any other device to the load, the alternator works harder, and the power it requires is taken from the engine. The energy cost is inconspicuous but that does not make it free.
 
Hindmost said:
I fear the price drop will yield a false impression that all is well. But I guess my oil bill will be cheaper this year.

glenn
Click to expand...
It's really more of a sign that the bottom has dropped out of the market so badly that people are selling their oil futures.

On the plus side, now is not a bad time to pick up some oil futures.
 
TjW said:
No. Efficiency isn't related to how fast you generate power pulses. It's a function of temperature differences. Essentially, that means the higher the compression ratio, the more efficient the engine can be. Google Carnot and "heat engine" for the theoretical explanation.

I've never heard of a two-stroke diesel that didn't have a turbo or super charger to increase the effective compression ratio, so I'd guess that the two strokes have a higher effective compression ratio than the four strokes they're being compared to.
Click to expand...

Ok I was wrong about my interpretation, but I think you can not flatly say either that a two stroke is by definition less efficient either since if it doesnt matter then two stroke vs four stroke is not important.

A gasoline/oil two stroke would indeed be less efficient since there is almost a certainty of some of the fuel-air mixture escaping. And I think that was the point made by GreyICE.
I just wanted to point out that a diesel two stroke (or other heavy fuel engine used in ships and trains) operates differently than a gsoline two stroke.

And almost all diesels these days use turbos since the gains are quite high.
 
Boran said:
Ok I was wrong about my interpretation, but I think you can not flatly say either that a two stroke is by definition less efficient either since if it doesnt matter then two stroke vs four stroke is not important.

A gasoline/oil two stroke would indeed be less efficient since there is almost a certainty of some of the fuel-air mixture escaping. And I think that was the point made by GreyICE.
I just wanted to point out that a diesel two stroke (or other heavy fuel engine used in ships and trains) operates differently than a gsoline two stroke.

And almost all diesels these days use turbos since the gains are quite high.
Click to expand...
Well, if you'll check your attributions, you'll see I wasn't the one who claimed two-strokes were inherently less efficient.

But I think turbodiesels is getting a bit off-topic for a magical hydrogen device thread.
 
The "Water 4 Gas" scam, in all of it's various incarnations, is just a simple magic trick, and the automobile is the misdirection in the act.

The automobile is just a prop... like the magician's handkerchief, it's only purpose in the act is to lure the audience's attention away from "the trick".

Let's break the claim down to it's fundamentals... The basic claim is that the "Water 4 Gas" gizmo uses a little bit of electricity, to produce a lot of fuel... specifically, hydrogen. It also produces oxygen, but oxygen isn't a fuel, so we can remove it from the equation.

So... we take our "Water 4 Gas" gizmo, and we plop it down on a bench... no automobile needed. We hook the gizmo up to a standard car battery, and we attach a meter to measure the amount of electricity the gizmo is consuming while it's "doing it's thing." (This is a very simple measurement which can be done with a meter you can buy at any Radio Shack for less than 40 bucks.) Then we attach a plastic trash bag to the gizmos output port... tape it up nice and airtight.

Next... we flip the switch, and let the gizmo work it's magic for an hour or so. At the end of the hour, we flip the switch off.

We then calculate the amount of electricity the gizmo consumed, and convert it into a standard unit of energy like Joules. Next we determine the volume of hydrogen the gizmo has produced, and then we convert the known energy content of that volume of hydrogen into Joules.

The is basic Science 101 stuff... it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.

Compare the two... if "Output Joules" exceeds "Input Joules"... hot damn! We got us a free lunch!

Here's the spoiler... the "Output Joules" will NOT exceed the "Input Joules"... as sure as God made little green apples, and they're ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
 
Last edited:
Psiload - that's not actually what they're claiming. What they're claiming doesn't work, but strawmanning them just gives them more stuff to throw at the legitimate critics.
 
GreyICE said:
Psiload - that's not actually what they're claiming. What they're claiming doesn't work, but strawmanning them just gives them more stuff to throw at the legitimate critics.
Click to expand...

How does this claim differ from what I described in my post?

http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm

...we have developed technology that uses a little electricity out of your car/truck battery, to separate water into a gas called "HHO" (2 parts Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Brown's Gas, Water-Fuel or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy...
Click to expand...

A little electricity makes TONS of energy.

Claim: Output Energy > Input Energy

No?
 
Cuddles said:
You mean the one I explicitly refered to and quoted figures from in the post you just responded to? No. No I didn't.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah... You didn't read the dam thing. If you did you wouldn't be parroting the same argument. This is why I said your cutting yourself with occam's razor. Everything you basically said is a grossly inaccurate generalization. The antirazor:
Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A human recently powered his bike-like rig to 81.4 mph.
With no hills; wind; or stored energy permitted.

Hopefully, what is learned at the extremes of efficiency will trickle-up to the consumer.

If Sam W. could do this with less than a horsepower, imagine what you could do with a 2hp engine, on some sort of rail system?
 
quarky said:
A human recently powered his bike-like rig to 81.4 mph.
With no hills; wind; or stored energy permitted.

Hopefully, what is learned at the extremes of efficiency will trickle-up to the consumer.

If Sam W. could do this with less than a horsepower, imagine what you could do with a 2hp engine, on some sort of rail system?
Click to expand...

You are not expecting a crocodile to do it, are you? Perhaps an alien (not mexicans)?
JK.
 
Psiload said:
How does this claim differ from what I described in my post?

A little electricity makes TONS of energy.

Claim: Output Energy > Input Energy

No?
Click to expand...
They're actually claiming that they increase the combustion efficiency of gasoline. A device that increased combustion efficiency would NOT violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, because it would be regaining energy already there (trivial example: The fuel pump on your car obviously consumes more energy than it imparts to the fuel, so turning it off increases the efficiency of your car...)

There are quite a few legitimate attempts to increase combustion efficiency, especially of diesel fuels, some of which show some promise.

Once again, I have no problem with attacking these scam artists, but I think any attacks that are based on strawmen of what they're saying will simply weaken the arguments against them, because as we've seen in the past these scammers will latch on to the fallacious arguments against them and use those fallacious arguments to poison the well against the legitimate debunking of their lies.
 
GreyICE said:
They're actually claiming that they increase the combustion efficiency of gasoline.
Click to expand...

Nope.

water4gas.com said:
have doubled fuel economy (61 MPG) in my Toyota Corolla 1999, and many more have doubled or even tripled their mileage. Too good to be true? Read on...

You may already know that water is supplemental to gasoline (petrol) or diesel fuel. However it is possible and VERY EASY to extract energy from water to run your car on water too.

We have water-to-energy converters running in all our vehicles since 2006. I'm about to show you a SIMPLE technology you can have right now, called
logo4.png
. It's one of the most PRACTICAL free-energy devices, marked by extraordinary simplicity and effectiveness.

logo4.png
is NOT my invention and it's not new. Based on old "forgotten" US Patents we have developed technology that uses a little electricity out of your car/truck battery, to separate water into a gas called "HHO" (2 parts Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Brown's Gas, Water-Fuel or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy - while the end product is just WATER!

Mobile Magazine says: HHO provides the atomic power of Hydrogen, while maintaining the chemical stability of water.
Click to expand...


http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm


Now keep in mind there's a reason for this confusion; the people selling the devices all have different explanations for how it's supposed to work. Some compare them to add-ons that make the existing fuel combust more efficiently, some compare them to Hydrogen cars like the Honda Clarity, some (as above) claim to burn Hydrogen as a fuel.

That's part of the deal, they know that people have heard the word "Hydrogen" tossed around in talking about future cars so they just seize on that with their silly mason jar device. They write up a few paragraphs that make sense to someone without an education on the subject and there you go.
 
Last edited:
David Wong said:
Nope.




http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm


Now keep in mind there's a reason for this confusion; the people selling the devices all have different explanations for how it's supposed to work. Some compare them to add-ons that make the existing fuel combust more efficiently, some compare them to Hydrogen cars like the Honda Clarity, some (as above) claim to burn Hydrogen as a fuel.

That's part of the deal, they know that people have heard the word "Hydrogen" tossed around in talking about future cars so they just seize on that with their silly mason jar device. They write up a few paragraphs that make sense to someone without an education on the subject and there you go.
Click to expand...

Basically, it seems that they'll pick one of the above explanations, and if you say "bull****," they'll say, "Oh no, you misunderstood the claim."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom