Water 4 Gas

[Toke]

Does that include the bottle?

 

[GreyICE]

Does that include the bottle?

http://www.fashionfunky.com/2008/02/tata_producing_mdi_onecat_airc.php

They hit 350 kg. That's 770 lbs.

 

[TjW]

Sometimes I wish I'd finished my A-levels (pure maths, applied maths and physics).

"kJ/kg storage" - I thought energy density would be a cool name for that ... googles ... Wiki/Energy_density -

Energy density by mass (MJ/kg)
* Lithium ion battery 0.54–0.72
Compressed air at 20 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.27
Compressed air at 300 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.512

Energy density by volume (MJ/L)
* Lithium ion battery 0.9–1.9
Compressed air at 20 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.01
Compressed air at 300 bar (at 12°C), without container 0.16

So I guess energy density is one of those half-remembered terms from my school days.


* A typically available lithium ion cell with an Energy Density of 201 wh/kg

My emphasis. The utility of those numbers is somewhat limited for a practical comparison.

 

[Toke]

Without container, ok, my reading error.

 

[King of the Americas]

If there are no test results, why withhold your judgment? Has there been insufficient time to test it? Have all the for-hire dynamometers in the country burned out? I think you're being way too generous to persons whose entire approach to their invention stinks of fraudulent intent and pandering to magical thinking. If a claim you didn't happen to find so attractive were made by someone else, and the means of testing it it were obvious to you, would you give it even a moment's credence on the basis of the arguments you're putting forth here?

How about a reductio ad absurdum?

I claim that I have the power to increase my car battery's voltage by 10 percent by waving this magic wand over the hood. I'll sell you the plans for the wand for 20 dollars. Various people have been reported to have seen the headlights brighten when I do this on my car. Now you can have this magic on your car for only 20 dollars' worth of plans (you provide the parts for the gadget, sorry I can't tell you what they are until you buy the plans).

Hey, nobody has come up with a definitive test that debunks my claim. Of course if my device actually worked, I could at least measure the effect with a ten dollar voltmeter in front of witnesses, and publish the results, but why should the burden be on me? You disprove it, so that I still have the chance to tell you you did it wrong, built it wrong, or used the wrong technique, and keep on selling my product. So, why don't you send for the instructions?

I repeat, the burden for testing a device like this, whose claimed effect runs contrary to conventional physics and engineering, is entirely up to the person promoting it. An honest person would test his claims, and a dishonest person would not. If the promoter has not provided even the simplest objective test results to back up his claim, it is because he knows no such results can be obtained. You'd be a fool to think otherwise.

It is nobody else's responsibility to debunk this stuff, because until it is proven by its inventor or promoter, it is, ipso facto, bunk!

This may or may not surprise you, but I AGREE with you, as to who's responsibility it is to prove this works.

That said, 'I' am NOT selling these things. 'I' have absolutely NO responsibility to you or anyone to provide such test. I am just here LOOKING FOR results.

Now, given that I have heard a half a dozen accounts of actual positive results, I am withhold MY personal final judgement until I 'see' controlled test results from a dynamometer.

If you or anyone else has seen or ran such a test, I'd LOVE to see the results.

Thank you.

 

[TMiguel]

Oh..I see what KOA is on about with the "surplus" electricity..

Assuming that the alternator is constantly under load generating electricity and that 'surplus" electricity is being wasted and might as ell be put to use powering the car.

I was actually thinking the same sort of thing, (and yes I''m aware that the "excess" power is very minimal), because upthread I stated that when I turned on the headlights on my old skanky van, I could hear a noticeable drop in engine RPM. Yet when I turn on the lights in my newer, non skanky van, I don't notice the same effect.

I got to thinking that there might be something to this, that my alternator might just be constantly generating power regardless of demand....

But then it hit me last night....it's my daytime running lights.

I don't know if you guys have daytime running lights in the US, but we here in Canada have had them for years..

So my alternator is constantly under load.

Just because you don’t notice it doesn’t mean it is happening.
And it doesn’t matter if your light is always on, the load is proportional to the consumption, you are not losing anything.

 

[King of the Americas]

What? Are you suggesting that somebody uses time and money to disprove the claim? That's not the way things work, dude. Onus of proof is on the claimant.



So what?



OK, and an alternator is 12V so the power is 36W. That is all you can feed back to the engine, not counting losses. One horsepower is 785W. How much difference do you think 35W makes?



No, not really. Water injection and various other schemes can be used to boos engine output, but there is always a cost. All this is already well researched.



Well, why don't you ask that question to the guy who claims this works?

Seriously KOTA, car manufacturers have been optimizing engines for well over a century. Power output and mileage have always been competition factors, during the last few decades they have been major competition factors. Do you really, really think that if there was a way to achieve a significant gain in hp and mpg using a simple device, then car manufacturers all over the world would not be installing it?

Hans

Thank you for the response, but I have already been corrected several times on the errors you pointed out.

I agree with you as to who is responsible for paying for such a test. I am NOT here to suggest that anyone 'here' pay for such a test. I am merely suggesting that your theoritical claims are merely that, without verified test results to back up your claims. We live in an age where information flows freely. We have seen here TONS of tests results on MANY different types of energy saving devices. No one that presented those results paid little than a click of the mouse or two.

So, while I accept that the outright responsibility for 'proving' that these things work, is indeed on the seller, I am merely asking those here that claim it is a fraud, to back up their claims with documentation. This would INDEED be 'proof' that it isn't an efficiency device as all.

So far, I have not seen such test results, to confirm the claims against the device.

 

[TMiguel]

Thank you for the response, but I have already been corrected several times on the errors you pointed out.

I agree with you as to who is responsible for paying for such a test. I am NOT here to suggest that anyone 'here' pay for such a test. I am merely suggesting that your theoritical claims are merely that, without verified test results to back up your claims. We live in an age where information flows freely. We have seen here TONS of tests results on MANY different types of energy saving devices. No one that presented those results paid little than a click of the mouse or two.

So, while I accept that the outright responsibility for 'proving' that these things work, is indeed on the seller, I am merely asking those here that claim it is a fraud, to back up their claims with documentation. This would INDEED be 'proof' that it isn't an efficiency device as all.

So far, I have not seen such test results, to confirm the claims against the device.

Yes, but there is a well established science that basically put everything to work, to prove that, and that the proof must be from the side of the claimant.
Of course you are right now thinking “hey but you said that already, and I already said that I’m not into the device”, but that is not the reason why they keep insisting on the same answer, they do that because you can not restrain yourself from posting:

So far, I have not seen such test results, to confirm the claims against the device.

This makes people think you didn’t quite get the point, and that you are thinking the opposite of what you are saying.
What you are trying to find out is if there are other articles about the tests of the device, unfortunately there aren’t many. Before we hit the lab we must have a theoretical underpinning on the subject that we must test the veracity, we do not go to the lab to randomly make tests of things that we already know that it isn’t going to work in the first place. The gas out of water doesn’t have any theoretical background for why it should even do anything (besides it falls on a category of a wide variety of devices that that we already know it shouldn’t work), so don’t be surprise why there is no real independent scientist wasting its time and money to test it for their own.

 

[bruto]

This may or may not surprise you, but I AGREE with you, as to who's responsibility it is to prove this works.

That said, 'I' am NOT selling these things. 'I' have absolutely NO responsibility to you or anyone to provide such test. I am just here LOOKING FOR results.

Now, given that I have heard a half a dozen accounts of actual positive results, I am withhold MY personal final judgement until I 'see' controlled test results from a dynamometer.

If you or anyone else has seen or ran such a test, I'd LOVE to see the results.

Thank you.

I'm glad you agree with me up to a point, but sorry you do not see the second part of my point, which is, anecdotal accounts notwithstanding, if the device's promoters are not so utterly stupid that any statement they make must be assumed to be the dribblings of an idiot, then their behavior strikes me as so overwhelmingly indicative of fraudulent intent that it is not only unnecessary, but utterly foolish to withhold personal final judgment.

To come up with a device like this and to try to sell it without providing credible evidence that it works is preposterous, and I, at least, do not withhold my judgment on preposterous things.

 

[Stout]

Just because you don’t notice it doesn’t mean it is happening.
And it doesn’t matter if your light is always on, the load is proportional to the consumption, you are not losing anything.

Thanks for clearing that up. My lights are the only thing that draws any power as my AC is busted ( I don't care, I don't need it living on the west coast ) and when I played around last night by turning my daytime lights on and off ( via the emergency brake ) I did notice a change in idle.

So.....no 36 watts going begging then.

 

[Brian-M]

Oh..I see what KOA is on about with the "surplus" electricity..

Assuming that the alternator is constantly under load generating electricity and that 'surplus" electricity is being wasted and might as ell be put to use powering the car.

With DC, power is voltage times current. Theoretically, you could produce as much voltage as you wanted without using any power.

Of course, as soon as you try to use that voltage, you start drawing current. This current not only passes through the device you're using, but also through the coils on the alternator/generator, producing a magnetic field pushing in the opposite direction than the alternator/generator is turning, meaning the motor as to work harder to turn the alternator/generator.

In other words, your car isn't producing any surplus electricity. The more electric power you use, the harder the motor has to work.

(Note: Most cars use alternators, not generators. The voltage regulator converts the AC from the alternator into DC.)

 

[Sherman Bay]

So, while I accept that the outright responsibility for 'proving' that these things work, is indeed on the seller, I am merely asking those here that claim it is a fraud, to back up their claims with documentation. This would INDEED be 'proof' that it isn't an efficiency device as all.

So far, I have not seen such test results, to confirm the claims against the device.

And we have not seen such test results to confirm the claims FOR the device.

Given that those claims are so unbelievable to a physics major, and would require overturning the bulk of science, not to mention winning the Nobel Prize, making a gajillion dollars and the world a better place, don't you think the the absence of such test results is a VERY significant piece of information? Doesn't that lack speak volumes? Doesn't that make your BS detector point skyward?

From a technical standpoint, to repeat what many others have said in a slightly different manner, a car, once fueled and running might be considered a closed system. It converts fuel into work at X% efficiency, which can never be greater than 100%. If you inject something to make the engine run faster or produce higher torque, which is entirely possible, you have to get that something from inside the closed system. But, and here's the catch, to get a 10% improvement, you might have to expend 20% of the fuel! Whatever the improvement, you have to use more than you gain to get it.

The only way this will work is if you inject something like hydrogen from outside the closed system. Then your 10% improvement isn't being a burden on the closed system's fuel. But now you have changed the parameters and you lose again.

Take a physics course, Dude (KOTA). It might open your eyes.

 

[autumn1971]

First, ArvinMeritor in cooperation with MIT was developing a plasma reformer for use in ICE. They sold the technology to EMCON for ~$300 million however no word as of late what they are doing with it.

As stated previously, an electrolyzer "HHO" generator on an OEM production vehicle is neither practical or even safe as the average Joe/Jane Idiot would likely ruin it or turn it into a disaster waiting to happen. Trucking firms and backyard mechanics are more suited for this. A gasoline reformer would be much better.

I've been doing this for over 10 years on 3 different vehicles. I raced cars for 25 years and worked in the automotive engineering business the last 15, 10 in Aerospace previous. It is not difficult to gain 20% using this mundane technology. My 2003 Durango 4.7L now has well over 60,000 miles logged with a 6 cell plate type electrolyzer with ~75% efficiency putting out 2.5-3.0 LPM. A new unit is in the works using this new technology. I really don't care about nabobs who don't have the ability or desire to experiment; leave that to those of us who do.

We can discuss the finer points and technical aspects of how it works, but that is available from various sources so there's no reason to impress with BS. The idea that an engine must be completely redesigned to run at leaner conditions comes from ignorance and is your way of attempting to make it appear you know the first thing about combustion processes and engine design.

Also, your example of increasing efficiency by eliminating the fuel pump is quite hilarious and would be undetectable. In fact, you couldn't measure the difference in efficiency by turning off the entire electrical system.

Having never purchased 'water4gas' or any other device I cannot comment on them, however have had correspondence with Fran Giroux who has much experience with "HHO", I have confidence in him.

The following focuses on commericial vehicles using diesel fuel. The government is now beginning to acknowledge "HHO" injection as a viable technology.
GUIDELINES FOR USE OF HYDROGEN FUEL IN COMMERCIAL VEHICLES Final Report







CHEC guarntees 10% minimum fuel mileage increase with reported actual real world results much higher. That their system is installed on several thousand vehicles pretty much makes you the fool, unless of course you think trucking fleets are in the habit of flushing money down the toilet.

Performance and Fuel Consumption Estimation of a Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline Engine At Part-Load Operation




From the article:
[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_1032348f2460c17095.jpg[/URL]


I realize you've put all your eggs in the naysayer basket and therefore must do what you can to save face, but you don't have the foggiest.

For the love of whatever, buy a motorcycle.
Or buy a station wagon.
How tiny does an American male's reproductive organ have to be to convince him that he needs an off road vehicle to drive to the local Wal-mart?

I get eighty MPG on a Honda Rebel.
My wiener has not shrunk.

 

[blutoski]

From a technical standpoint, to repeat what many others have said in a slightly different manner, a car, once fueled and running might be considered a closed system. It converts fuel into work at X% efficiency, which can never be greater than 100%. If you inject something to make the engine run faster or produce higher torque, which is entirely possible, you have to get that something from inside the closed system. But, and here's the catch, to get a 10% improvement, you might have to expend 20% of the fuel! Whatever the improvement, you have to use more than you gain to get it.

My impression is that the theory is different: that the H2g and O2g are not acting as additional fuel, but as a fuel additive to improve engine efficiency.

Analogy: consider the vehicle is diverting energy to operate the air mix. The small amount of energy diverted to the air intake's logic circuit pays off in terms of fuel efficiency.

The only way this will work is if you inject something like hydrogen from outside the closed system. Then your 10% improvement isn't being a burden on the closed system's fuel. But now you have changed the parameters and you lose again.

I suggested this earlier, based on my above interpretation of the claim. The unique claim is that adding H2g + O2g enhances engine performance, which is independent of any claims about the source, and can be tested very easily and relatively cheaply, in controlled conditions that would convince any skeptic and start the path to patents and wealth.

 

[Toke]

Last month I were at the BMW museum in münchen. They had an exibit on hydrogen a car/engine. The idea was liquid hydrogen in a well insolated tank.

It is amacing that they havent throught of adding a bit of hydrogen to the air intake, since it seems to improve combustion and milage lots

 

[balrog666]

Last month I were at the BMW museum in münchen. They had an exibit on hydrogen a car/engine. The idea was liquid hydrogen in a well insolated tank.

It is amacing that they havent throught of adding a bit of hydrogen to the air intake, since it seems to improve combustion and milage lots

Liquid hydrogen? In a car??

 

[Brian-M]

Liquid hydrogen? In a car??

For hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
The debate over compressed hydrogen and liquid hydrogen is still unresolved.

Here's some interesting links on liquid hydrogen in cars...
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/liquid-hydrogen.htm
http://www.goodcleantech.com/2008/06/liquid_hydrogen_storage_breakt.php
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/hythane-company.html

 

[Sherman Bay]

My impression is that the theory is different: that the H2g and O2g are not acting as additional fuel, but as a fuel additive to improve engine efficiency.

I considered that interpretation, but you're still asking for something for nothing.

I can agree that if you have a poorly designed, built or tuned internal combustion engine that is running at a low efficiency, that many things could be done to improve the power output. Maybe you could recapture unburned fuel and feed it back into the intake, which would be a lot harder than a simple tuneup, but it might work as proof-of-concept.

But today's cars' engines are pretty efficient (How efficient? Pretty darn.) They don't waste a lot of fuel and their throughput is close to what is theoretically possible given friction, temperatures, etc. There's not much that can be done to improve the input -- auto companies sure would have done that already if they could.

What these schemes are asking is for the engine to work harder to produce a different kind of fuel (like hydrogen) which is then added to the gas input mixture. You now have increased the drain on the engine to produce fuel at a loss due to the double conversion.

Analogy: consider the vehicle is diverting energy to operate the air mix. The small amount of energy diverted to the air intake's logic circuit pays off in terms of fuel efficiency.

Not quite. A small of amount of energy is expended to produce less energy (durn those pesky thermodynamics laws again) to feed back to an engine already running at peak efficiency. Or at least it was. Now it's less efficient because it has more work to do.

Why not put a wind generator on top of the car? That will produce energy when the car is moving. Feed it to the engine somehow and you have free energy, right? Does that sound like a good idea? It's exactly the same concept as this water4gas scheme. Explain why that won't work and you'll understand why the water scheme fails, too.

Let's not be afraid to call a fraud a fraud and be done with it.

 

[blutoski]

I considered that interpretation, but you're still asking for something for nothing.

I can agree that if you have a poorly designed, built or tuned internal combustion engine that is running at a low efficiency, that many things could be done to improve the power output. Maybe you could recapture unburned fuel and feed it back into the intake, which would be a lot harder than a simple tuneup, but it might work as proof-of-concept.

But today's cars' engines are pretty efficient (How efficient? Pretty darn.) They don't waste a lot of fuel and their throughput is close to what is theoretically possible given friction, temperatures, etc. There's not much that can be done to improve the input -- auto companies sure would have done that already if they could.

Right, but to a credophile who thinks his buddies have accidentally discovered something new, hope springs eternal that there's some unknown factor. History is filled with "it doesn't work in theory," but the theory needs to be updated because of the facts on the ground are that it works.

Let's not be afraid to call a fraud a fraud and be done with it.

Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that it's fraud. But since it's obvious nobody cares what skeptics think, that's not going to actually have an effect on how people waste their hard-earned cash.

What I'm trying to do is design a definitive test to falsify the hypothesis that has such popular face validity. We can only do that by dissecting the claim and approaching it as it is presented.

Same with the JREF MDC: let them spell out the claim, then test it. Don't armchair dismiss - that just makes them think we are cynics or lazy or blindly authoritarian. Plus: designing a test can help a lost credophile understand that skeptics are truly persuaded by evidence more than opinion, even our own.

In this case, based on what's being described, it's probably best to start the investigation by examining whether the addition of H2g + O2g to an engine will improve efficiency. If the result is 0% improvement, then we've made a lot of progress toward debunking the claim in the eyes of most people who would be on the fence. If the result is x% improvement, then we can compare that to the energy expended electrolyzing water to see if there's any net benefit. (Based on the experiments I've cited above that showed no benefit, I doubt it would come to that)

 

[EHocking]

A compressed air car has been made and functions fine.

But is only in R&D. There are no commercially available compressed air cars in production at the moment.

Closest, it seems, is Tata Motors in India that have been announcing the "imminent" production of their CityCat or MiniCat for a year or more after agreement with the originator of the idea, MDI. Latest announcement I could find is that they are still 2 years from production.