Water 4 Gas

Thanks "blutoski", for that EPA link.

I don't suppose you have any idea as to what this "HHO" device would be listed under?

I'll dissect that link, tomorrow.

Again thanks, this could very well be exactly what I was hunting.
 
King of the Americas said:
My argument is that EVERYONE who I have heard from, who has one of these things on their car, has 'reported' back to me, that they are getting more hp & mpg.
Click to expand...
Are they having positive results, or just believe that they do?
How do they know that they are having positive results?
Have they been scammed or are they props of the scam itself?

A couple of questions you should answer before going forward.
 
David Rodale said:
To clarify, I've never read 'water4gas' and frankly don't care. There are many nutty claims out there. What you folks do is pick the least common denominator and lump them in with the legitimate ones.

Are you prepared to say it is impossible to increase fuel efficiency via injection of H2 or "HHO" generated onboard a vehicle using said vehicles electrical system, both in theory and in the real world?


Yes or no? Very simple.
Click to expand...

But the wrong question, right? We want to know if the specific claim that modification X is supported by sufficient evidence. If that's the case, then it doesn't matter what we think.

So, you're saying that there are legitemate cases... great. Produce your best case.
 
King of the Americas said:
The HHO system was NOT tested, in the either of the links you provided.
Click to expand...

There is no reason what so ever to test the device, has it directly falls has a fakery just by its conceptual nonsensical claim. The person doing the claim must be the one providing the evidence and prove itself to be legitimate, but for how it looks I don’t think that will happen, ever!
 
David Rodale said:
Are you prepared to say it is impossible to increase fuel efficiency via injection of H2 or "HHO" generated onboard a vehicle using said vehicles electrical system, both in theory and in the real world?
Click to expand...

The question is also too complicated. Uncouple the generation of hyrdogen step, since the central claim is that H2g + O2g injection will improve engine efficiency.

This is very easy to test in isolation, and the added benefits are that we would be able to develop a dose/response curve to find an optimum mix for specific engine properties (eg: engine or fuel line temperature may influence optimum mix ratios - why not?), which would give us real numbers for maximum potential yield.

Another benefit is that the distraction of engine load from activating electrolysis would be eliminated. (when you turn on the electrolysis, it's like turning on the headlights - extra load on the engine, it will change idle rate and you will hear this, which could be misinterpreted as an effect from hydrogen injection)
 
King of the Americas said:
Thanks "blutoski", for that EPA link.

I don't suppose you have any idea as to what this "HHO" device would be listed under?

I'll dissect that link, tomorrow.

Again thanks, this could very well be exactly what I was hunting.
Click to expand...
The below is about a very similar device

From: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/devices/pb83214684.pdf (the typos in the document are more than likely due to flaws in the OCR)

A few air-bleed device9 tested by EPA have shown small
improvements in emissions or fuel economy by leaning out
the rich air/fuel mixtures of vehicles which were produced
prior to emission standards. Without even using a device,
ho weve r , these results could be approximated by adjusting
the idle mixture screws. With the leaner calibrations of
recent years, even these few devices would not show
improvements and may cause driveability problems. Yost of
the current models now employ feedback carburetor systems.
A.5 a result, any changes attributable to the device would
automatically be negated by the controls.
Several other devices tested by EPA have introduced liquids
or vapors into the combustion chamber . In sufficient
quantities, water injection can extend the detonation
limits of the engine. This allows modifications or
adjustments which can improve fuel economy (although
usually at the expense of emission levels). In the case of
the Atomized Vapor Injector, however, the amount of liquid
introduced 1s relatively small. The device is stated to
use 100 ml of liquid per 20 gallon tank of gasoline. For a
vehicle achieving 20 miles per gallon, this rate F9 only
0.25 ml of liquid per mile. At this level, the energy
content of the alcohol would have no discernible effect.
The amount of water Is also insignificant, especially
considering that the applicant does not specify any engine
paramet et adjustments.
Click to expand...
Please note the bolded sections.
 
King of the Americas said:
I said I was looking for actual test results, for the device I mention.

You post 2 articles, NEITHER of which offer this test result, and you claim 'I' missed the point?
Click to expand...

I think the point, from my limited knowledge of physics, is thus;

Summary: A device fitted to the car splits water into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas which is then burnt to make the engine run more efficiently.

Point 1 - The device uses power from the engine to run the electrolysis device.
Every step loses energy. The car burns more fuel to power the device and a percentage is lost through friction and heat, the device splits the water more energy is lost through heat. The amount of energy gained by burning the H2 and O can not be more than was used in it's manufacture and due to friction and heat loss will be lower than the energy used to create it.

Point 2 - There is only water or H2 and O in their gaseous forms, HHO is merely restating with the intent of confusing. Whilst HHO is an adequate way of writing it as H2O is merely a nomenclature

Point 3 - Most modern cars, that are well maintained, burn the fuel at a very high efficiency that is well controlled by engine management systems. Adding aftermarket devices can screw with the systems resulting in poorer efficiency, increased pollutants or even engine damage.

Point 4 - If such a device did increase mileage car manufacturers would be falling over themselves to install in the present climate of high oil prices, who doesn't want a car that's cheaper to run.

Point 5 - Time and time again these devices have proven to be fraudulent, the requirements to get them working would require rewriting large chunks of physics. What's so different or special about this one that it gets a free pass?
 
King of the Americas said:
Thanks "blutoski", for that EPA link.

I don't suppose you have any idea as to what this "HHO" device would be listed under?

I'll dissect that link, tomorrow.

Again thanks, this could very well be exactly what I was hunting.
Click to expand...

The link here provides what you requested.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

here is real research

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/05ja/05ja022/05ja022_full.pdf

And there is still no such thing as HHO...using that term gives credence to something that doesn't exist. The only thing you get with electrolysis is diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen...H2 and O2

glenn
 
King of the Americas said:
Thanks "blutoski", for that EPA link.

I don't suppose you have any idea as to what this "HHO" device would be listed under?
Click to expand...

I doubt any of these are similar to the HHO modification.

There are thousands of claims. Too many to test independently.

Generally, claimants learned in the 1980s that independent tests were objective, so the wilful scammers stopped submitting requests for testing.

The only test applicants since have been the sincere but misguided.

But just on the off-chance your colleagues have tripped over some unknown effect thato actually does what they think... good news everyone! There's a million dollars in it for them!

[The One Million Dollar HHO Challenge]:
To win the money, all you have to do is fit an HHO system to a late model car (already in good condition and tune) so that a consistent 25% or greater improvement in fuel economy is obtained and maintained for six months, without causing any damage to the engine.
Click to expand...

Also worth perusing through the HHO challenge pages, which include some analysis of the physics challenge: [The HHO Scambusting Homepage] and the [FAQ] (please observe the warnings about the common engine damage that results from this modification)
 
Interesting thread, I've been reading it over the past couple of days and only just now clicked on the water 4 gas website. OK, I followed a link from the HHO scambusters site and it just happened to be.......

So, it's a hundred bucks for a couple of online manuals ( here I was looking at the pictures of the manuals thinking I'd be getting some lengthy tomes, ) that pretty much tell me to strap a jar to the side of my engine.

Well, if it's strapping hydrogen generating containers to my engine that's going to save me tons of money, then I figure I'll "experiment" with strapping a bottle of aqueous lye solution with a few bits of tinfoil in it and harvest the hydrogen produced by that..

I mean, that's a lot of lye and tinfoil just to equal the cost of manuals not to mention the cost of the components to assemble the water 4 gas device. So I'll not only save time and money doing it my way, but i won't have to admit to anyone that I've been taken in by a scam when my mileage doesn't improve...

Hummm...maybe I could sell this... nah, I'll just donate the idea, for the good of the planet you know.
 
King of the Americas said:
Again, where is the conclusive dynamometer test results?
Click to expand...
And again (and again and again?) Where indeed? It is painfully, ridiculously, obviously obvious, at least to me, that the responsibility for this lies with the persons promoting the device. They make the claims. Testing is relatively inexpensive, and if they took it to an independent testing facility, they would also have disinterested observers to confirm that they are performing the tests honestly. I bet you could get a decent set of preliminary results, enough to make a claim worth deeper testing, for an hour's dyno time, at about $150. If they were honest they would have every reason to do it and no reason not to. If they are crooks, the first and most obvious thing they would do is avoid objective testing. This is NOT a complicated concept to grasp, is it?
 
CapelDodger said:
I'm glad you brought that up, because I know this guy with a sail-design that's 108% efficient. All it needs some seed-money and it'll take the world by storm.

(It doesn't work in storm-conditions, but that's a technicality.)
Click to expand...

All you have to do is put a fan on the boat, blowing into the sail. Duh.
 
To test the system, you'd only need to install an on/off switch in a concealed location and have a person not involved in testing it switch it on/off on the basis of a coin flip between several dyno and mpg tests. An actual randomized double-blind test, with only one car.

Electrolyzing water with only 3A current would produce only tiny amounts of hydrogen, plus you'd be getting a lot of ordinary water vapor (from evaporation) being sucked into the air intake, displacing fuel and air.

Wouldn't it be simpler to add a small hydrogen gas tank to the car, and supplement the fuel from that? If fact, you could probably experiment with different kinds of gases to see what works best.

I expect you'd get good results from nitrous oxide. :D
 
Hindmost said:
The link here provides what you requested.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

here is real research

http://www.psfc.mit.edu/library1/catalog/reports/2000/05ja/05ja022/05ja022_full.pdf

And there is still no such thing as HHO...using that term gives credence to something that doesn't exist. The only thing you get with electrolysis is diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen...H2 and O2

glenn
Click to expand...

Thanks "glenn".

But I have already seen and read that popular mechanics link, and it doesn't provide the dynamometer test either, but rather adds more anecdotal evidence to support the claim that these devices work.

The second link DOES mention higher efficiencies with hydrogen, but the device reviewed is quite different than the one I have described.

I do however appreciate your input.

I'd also like to add, that the creator or seller of these things has called them "HHO Devices", whether or not that is an accurate term is pointless to argue. It's a "Bubbling Jar", from what I have seen.
 
How the heck does the creator of these HHO devices know that they work, if he doesn't even have dynamometer testing results?
 
bruto said:
And again (and again and again?) Where indeed? It is painfully, ridiculously, obviously obvious, at least to me, that the responsibility for this lies with the persons promoting the device. They make the claims. Testing is relatively inexpensive, and if they took it to an independent testing facility, they would also have disinterested observers to confirm that they are performing the tests honestly. I bet you could get a decent set of preliminary results, enough to make a claim worth deeper testing, for an hour's dyno time, at about $150. If they were honest they would have every reason to do it and no reason not to. If they are crooks, the first and most obvious thing they would do is avoid objective testing. This is NOT a complicated concept to grasp, is it?
Click to expand...


No it isn't.

Look, I don't know how many times I can say this, "I am NOT selling or advertising for these thing! I am looking for actual test results that will confirm or debunk these claims."

To date I have seen NO such test results, and thus I am with holding my final judgement as to this device's ability to increase efficiency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom