PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-12-11, 02:49:13
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Fast Freddy's car runs on water!  (Read 43203 times)
Group: Guest
Just thought I'd bring this to the attention of anyone interested in water fuel technology.  

Fast Freddy, as he's known, has created quite a stir, with many people immediately jumping to the conclusion that his claims verify Stan Meyer, et cetera, et cetera.  He claims that he is outputting 55 litres of hydroxy gas per minute!! Unfortunately, he is clearly not the brightest of chappies and has yet to have his own claims independently verified.  He says that he is going to open source everything and has started putting together a video diary of a new build.  He has uploaded a few pretty pointless videos, where he seems to be promoting his gun making business more than anything else, and has yet to provide anything of value.

Myself, I do not for a second believe that the relatively small electrolyser he is/was employing is capable of delivering 55 litres per minute of hydroxy... oh, and thats from just 55 amps!

Here's a couple of links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwQ6Acv2fQc

http://pesn.com/2010/08/17/9501689_QA_Frederick_Wells_VP_Future_Energy_Concepts_Inc/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbxqQQ4mGzQ

http://groups.futureenergyconceptsinc.com/documentation/
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
It is my understanding that when a spark is applied to a HHO stochiometric mixture, there is an implosion (recombination) resulting in a droplet of water being formed.

This would imply that the large reduction in volume from the gas to the liquid state would require a different configuration of the engine timing, firing at bottom dead center (BDC) rather than top dead center (TDC) to pull the piston up with implosion rather than forcing it down with explosion.

I have not watched all the videos of Fast Freddy. Does he mention anywhere how the timing switchover is performed?

I understand that a lot of folks are claiming increased mileage by adding HHO to a normal gasoline vehicle. One that runs entirely on HHO it seems would be a fundamentally different animal.

Can anyone explain this?

Edit: Here is someone's explanation

Quote
When the gas ignites and the hydrogen and oxygen recombine, they form water droplets. In the very hot environment in a compressed cylinder, the droplets then convert to steam, expanding, and giving an added push to the power stroke of the piston.

Looks like a chicken and egg situation e.g what forced the piston to compress the gas causing all that heat. Also at moment of recombination it would seem the implosion would offset the effects of the steam explosion. So the words "added push" implies a "push" from an implosion?
« Last Edit: 2010-10-01, 18:33:48 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3116
tExB=qr
If HHO implodes, wouldn't this open the valves on the engine?

The trick to water as a fuel is finding a way to cheaply convert it to free radicals and then maintain them long enough to recombine in the cylinder and release their volatile cocktail.

Someone around here knew a great deal about this, I think it was "microcontroller", but I might be wrong.

(I'll keep my wager on the TPU.)
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
If HHO implodes, wouldn't this open the valves on the engine?

Good point G. Yes an implosion at BDC would suck the valves open. That's why I said it would have to be a radically different type of engine. The valves would have to operate in an inverted fashion as in a vacuum pump.

 HHO does implode. This is easily proven. I witnessed this demo once where a chamber with a piston was filled with HHO. A heavy weight was attached to the extended piston. The mixture was ignited with a spark plug and the heavy weight was lifted up as the piston was forced to reduce the volume of the chamber due to the vacuum of the implosion. A little water vapor was all that was left.

What these folks seem to be saying is the HHO mixture is compressed then ignited at TDC. If it is already under pressure, it would seem that the implosion (vacuum) would nullify the compression (pressure) and you would be left no power stroke. Now you have to figure out where the energy of compression came from.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 660
ION,
It is my understanding that HHO in exactly the split water percentages does infact implode when ignited, but when it is being injected into an engine it is being mixed with outside air and gas which changes everything and the mixture actually explodes. The hydrogen and oxygen act to produce cleaner and more complete burning of the hydrocarbons  increasing power and mileage.  I think Farrah knows more about this.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3116
tExB=qr
ION,
It is my understanding that HHO in exactly the split water percentages does infact implode when ignited, but when it is being injected into an engine it is being mixed with outside air and gas which changes everything and the mixture actually explodes. The hydrogen and oxygen act to produce cleaner and more complete burning of the hydrocarbons  increasing power and mileage.  I think Farrah knows more about this.


My understanding too, is that is is a mixture that explodes.  There is air with the water after combustion.

Electricity is the future.  My money and time are on the TPU.

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3637
It's turtles all the way down
The hydrogen and oxygen act to produce cleaner and more complete burning of the hydrocarbons  increasing power and mileage.  I think Farrah knows more about this.

This thread is supposedly about Fast Freddy who claims to run the truck on 100% stochiometric HHO. Supposedly, there are no hydrocarbons involved in the process.

I understand that there are variations of HHO systems that also burn petroleum derivatives plus air.
« Last Edit: 2010-10-02, 09:30:02 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
This thread was about Fast Freddy who claims to run the truck on 100% stochiometric HHO. No hydrocarbons involved in the process.

Since water is hydrogen "ash" it certainly is a difficult proposition.  Notwithstanding the implosion issue when you are burning 2 H2 + O2, there is a very tall order when you look at the energy trail:

1.  You have to expend electrical energy to rip apart the hydrogen ash to produce two gasses and waste heat energy.
2.  Then take those two gasses and burn them to get mechanical energy and waste heat energy and hydrogen ash.
3.  Expend mechanical energy to push your truck forward.
4.  Expend mechanical energy to drive the alternator to make electrical energy.
5.  Go to step 1.

So it's a classic perpetual motion idea; You burn hydrogen and oxygen to push your truck forward AND rip apart hydrogen ash to make more hydrogen and oxygen.

The fuel is pushing your truck forward and making enough replacement fuel to keep the whole shebang going.

Something doesn't add up.

MileHigh
« Last Edit: 2010-10-02, 04:52:09 by MileHigh »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1089
@milehigh
Quote
So it's a classic perpetual motion idea; You burn hydrogen and oxygen to push your truck forward AND rip apart hydrogen ash to make more hydrogen and oxygen.
The fuel is pushing your truck forward and making enough replacement fuel to keep the whole shebang going.
Something doesn't add up.
I would agree, if there is one thing we should have understood by now it is that ripping things apart, tearing things down, applying horrendous forces until something has no choice but to give way has never really worked out all that well for us. There is no intuition in it, no forethought, no indication of a higher thought process and yet this is what we do and this is what our supposedly "modern" society is based upon.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Group: Guest
Too be honest guys, I doubt a lot of the claims that Freddy has made, and let's face it, we've heard it all before, but wanted to bring it to everyones attention as he has stated that he'll be fully disclosing everything. This makes it a little more intriguing, but much will depend on what follows... and nothing of value has been shown so far. There has - as per usual - been no independent verification of his claims. Nothing new there then. Nevertheless I'm watching with great curiosity to see where this goes.

I have years of experience in electrolysers and whether or not Freddy has run his vehicle on just water or not, I can say with confidence that his electrolyser is certainly not producing 55 litres of gas per minute. I don't need fancy equipment to verify this, the visual of his electrolyser at switch on is enough. At this stage I'm prepared to give Freddy the benefit of the doubt, but amongst other things I do not trust his measurements, his maths or indeed is explanation of operation.

Quote
It is my understanding that when a spark is applied to a HHO stochiometric mixture, there is an implosion (recombination) resulting in a droplet of water being formed.

With reference to the ICE, this is a long-standing common myth.  Yes if you ignite a stoichiometric volume of H2 and O2 gas the end result will be the formation of water, but everyone assumes that the water has to be in liquid form. It does not. Sure there will effectively be an implosion as an end result once the water vapour cools into liquid, but everyone seems to overlook the explosion phase.  The explosion phase is exothermic producing heat, and in a confined space such as the cylinder of an ICE, that heat can not easily dissipate, so the resulting water is heated and as such remains as gas, not liquid. Explosion, but no implosion.   This myth really has been kicking around forever and a day. 

In WWII  during the fuel shortages some businesses converted there vehicles to run on hydrogen. They were not timed 180 degrees out of phase and did not rely on implosion. In fact they simply set the timing after TDC to compensate for the much faster flame front of H2. In this case of course the hydrogen was burning in the oxygen available in normal air, but water was still the ash, and implosion not an issue.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 530
55 lpm is not even a gas measure. It is a volumetric measure for liquids consumption. It equals 14.54 gallons per minute. If this was true, it would take 145 gallons of water every 10 minutes and his water tank would have been empty by then since it was not even full to begin with. Something is not right with those numbers.


---------------------------
   
Group: Guest
55 lpm is not even a gas measure. It is a volumetric measure for liquids consumption. It equals 14.54 gallons per minute. If this was true, it would take 145 gallons of water every 10 minutes and his water tank would have been empty by then since it was not even full to begin with. Something is not right with those numbers.

I'm not sure what you mean. He claims that he is producing 55 litres of hydroxy in one minute, he is not saying that he dissociates 55 litres of liquid water in a minute! Quite a different thing.

Anyway I for one don't believe he is doing anywhere near that, and as this would be quite easy to show, I'm not sure why he hasn't at least verified this.

The fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about does nothing for his credibility. That said, I'm prepared to overlook this and give him a chance to provide the proof... just in case.
« Last Edit: 2010-10-02, 17:33:45 by Farrah Day »
   
Group: Guest
With reference to the ICE, this is a long-standing common myth.  Yes if you ignite a stoichiometric volume of H2 and O2 gas the end result will be the formation of water, but everyone assumes that the water has to be in liquid form. It does not. Sure there will effectively be an implosion as an end result once the water vapour cools into liquid, but everyone seems to overlook the explosion phase.  The explosion phase is exothermic producing heat, and in a confined space such as the cylinder of an ICE, that heat can not easily dissipate, so the resulting water is heated and as such remains as gas, not liquid. Explosion, but no implosion.   This myth really has been kicking around forever and a day.  

In WWII  during the fuel shortages some businesses converted there vehicles to run on hydrogen. They were not timed 180 degrees out of phase and did not rely on implosion. In fact they simply set the timing after TDC to compensate for the much faster flame front of H2. In this case of course the hydrogen was burning in the oxygen available in normal air, but water was still the ash, and implosion not an issue.

Farrah:

Thanks for clarifying that.  Steam and steam pressure, how it works is in a way almost a lost science for your average person.  I think that a lot of big cities still have a steam infrastructure in place.  Certainly New York City does.

Going back to the reality check, it takes more energy to split water to make 2 H2 + O2 than you can get back from it.  When you throw in the fact that you are also trying to run an ICE and push a truck around, forget it.

I watched about half of one of the clips where they shut off the gas line and then drive around.  If you want to be really cynical, how many of us know trucks enough to really say that they cut off the fuel line?  They had a big extra deep-cycle battery in the back of the truck to "just to build up pressure" or something like that.  So they start the truck and drive around.  What some people might not realize is that a big lead-acid battery can output a LOT of power for a moderate amount of time.  So if they take a 10-minute cruise then 99% of the power to create the 2 H2 + O2 could be coming from the big deep-cycle battery.  Perhaps in the back of the truck they were hiding a big extra gas generation unit, and the one you see running in the engine compartment is a token one.  Like you said, they simply can't generate the flow rate that they need from the unit in the engine compartment.

My opinion is that the whole thing is just another "HHO" con to make money off of gullible people.

As a general comment I am mystified why they always electrolyze water with some sort of AC signal to make 2 H2 + O2 gas, which is very dangerous.  Why don't they do it with some sort of DC signal to separate the gasses and then only recombine them in the fuel injection phase?  That would be so much safer.

I don't believe for a second that any type of pulsed AC or DC with some sort of a "magic" waveform will tap into "water resonance" or anything like that to make the separation of the water more efficient.  I bet that some people even believe that a "magic" configuration of plates and the right signal can even give you an over-unity production of gas.  The simple fact that the splitting process produces waste heat is telling you that the process is less than 100% efficient.  There is simply no logical reason that any signal/plate combination should do something above and beyond what is supposed to happen.

Even looking at a "standard setup" where you add 2 H2 + O2 to a regular gas fuel mixture, I don't believe for a second that that works either.  Whatever extra power you get from the motor is offset by the extra mechanical load on the alternator for a net loss in efficiency.  I know that you will find hundreds if not thousands of proponents that will claim that they get better mileage per gallon when they add their 2 H2 + O2 setups and I don't have a real response to that.  I can only speculate that they are wrong and it is a combination of con artists and wishful thinkers in a happy symbiotic relationship.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1089
@FarrahDay
Quote
Too be honest guys, I doubt a lot of the claims that Freddy has made, and let's face it, we've heard it all before, but wanted to bring it to everyones attention as he has stated that he'll be fully disclosing everything. This makes it a little more intriguing, but much will depend on what follows... and nothing of value has been shown so far. There has - as per usual - been no independent verification of his claims. Nothing new there then. Nevertheless I'm watching with great curiosity to see where this goes.

I would agree, I know many people like to knit-pick every little detail and offer endless critiques of why something cannot work but their result from this action is always the same. At the end of the day they have learned little if anything and they are no closer to understanding how something could work in reality. I do not believe everything I see or hear, I believe very little in fact, but I will always give them the benifit of the doubt not for their benefit but for mine because if I dismiss every claim that does not fit nicely into my little world then my little world can never expand. This is the problem with critics, they make very little if any progress because they will always be limited to what they know and resist all new possibilities. I am kind of the anti-critic in this respect, lol, if I have not learned at least 30 new things and conceptualized at least two or three new devices by dinner I am quite literally pissed off at the world because I am not making progress. It is never what I know, it is that instantaneous moment when I understand something new that never occured to me, that something I never could have imagined that just came out of nowhere when all the pieces of the puzzle are laid out correctly, this is my addiction. For me the fact of whether it works as claimed or not is a moot point, it is simply another problem to be solved and the chances are good that my solutions to the problem will not be the same as others thus I will always expand my understanding of things and make progress. I think the physics here are pretty straight forward, if your not making progress then your not going anywhere,lol.
Regards
AC



---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Group: Guest
AC:

There is real value in critiquing why something cannot work.  It offers a second perspective for people to consider when they are trying to determine for themselves what is true and what is not true.  Many people are interested but they may not have the knowledge to make an informed decision, they have to do research.  There is also great value for individuals because it helps them decide where to spend their money so that they don't get ripped off.  There is also the distinct possibility that the given critique is correct and true.

I recall seeing a posting on one of the other forums where somebody proclaimed that "all musical instruments that use resonance are over unity devices."  I couldn't respond because I was already banned from the other two forums.  To the best of my recollection, not a single person challenged that ridiculous statement.  In other words, no second perspective offered.  That could very well be because of an implicit peer pressure from the top down where expressing contrary opinions is not appreciated.  It's implicitly not tolerated and you can be labeled a "trouble maker."  It gets positively Orwellian.

The notion that dismissing a claim results that you are trapped in a "little world that can never expand" is also wrong.  The issue is to determine for yourself where you want to pursue knowledge, and where you don't want to pursue knowledge because you believe it to be false, or you have done your research and you know for a fact that it is false.  There is the distinct possibility that you will make an error with a "false negative" decision, but that's what life entails, and endless sequence of choices and you hope that you have the wisdom to make the right choices most of the time.  If you don't invest your time, money, and energy in modifying your vehicle with a "HHO" system, then you can pursue something else and learn something new.  There is a potentially huge time and financial "opportunity cost" in going down the wrong path.  Just look around, knowledge is expanding at a faster rate than it has ever expanded before, and we are already carrying around "Star Trek" hand-held computers that also happen to be cell phones.

I don't buy your argument where you say that you want to keep an open mind with respect to most free energy propositions just in case you might learn something and you "can expand."  There is so much legitimate mind expanding stuff going on that you will never be able to absorb it all.  Why pick at the bones of highly suspect information when it's most likely junk?  At the same time, filtering out the crap is an important skill that everyone should try to hone.  Take the example of Sterling Allen, he is incapable of filtering out the crap and his web sites are filled with nonsensical stuff, and a good chunk of it is nothing but con artists using him for the free publicity because they want to steal money off of gullible people.  It's simply wrong.  On the other hand, I respect Sterling because he allows contrary opinion to be posted in the comments section of his articles so that people can get both perspectives.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
Very well put AC.

I'm always open to the possibility that science as we understand it is not the be all and end all, and that every now and then something scientists and current scientific understanding says is 'impossible', suddenly becomes possible. There have been many cases in the past when our understanding of science has been severely overstated, and science has inevitably thrown up a googly. I just feel it is wrong dismiss things outright without due consideration, or without giving things a chance to fully play out. Afterall, we are always basing our thoughts on our current knowledge and understanding of science and what is generally accepted by scientists and the masses. We might just be missing a trick here and there.

Quote
Going back to the reality check, it takes more energy to split water to make 2 H2 + O2 than you can get back from it.  When you throw in the fact that you are also trying to run an ICE and push a truck around, forget it.

I watched about half of one of the clips where they shut off the gas line and then drive around.  If you want to be really cynical, how many of us know trucks enough to really say that they cut off the fuel line?  They had a big extra deep-cycle battery in the back of the truck to "just to build up pressure" or something like that.  So they start the truck and drive around.  What some people might not realize is that a big lead-acid battery can output a LOT of power for a moderate amount of time.  So if they take a 10-minute cruise then 99% of the power to create the 2 H2 + O2 could be coming from the big deep-cycle battery.  Perhaps in the back of the truck they were hiding a big extra gas generation unit, and the one you see running in the engine compartment is a token one.  Like you said, they simply can't generate the flow rate that they need from the unit in the engine compartment.

My opinion is that the whole thing is just another "HHO" con to make money off of gullible people.

MH, your reality check is at the very heart of this, and indeed I would expect it to be foremost in every scientifically-minded and educated persons thoughts. Let’s face it, just to have the alternator running to feed the electrolyser would be a closed-loop with no energy loss, but as you say he’s also finding spare energy to move a bloody great truck!

I too considered the deep cycle battery as a source of energy, and thought that maybe that battery was going flat within a few miles and the system stopping, but he claims to have driven it 3000 miles!

According to everything he has said, I find it hard to believe that he is unintentionally deceiving us through a lack of understanding, poor engineering or poor science. No, I’m more inclined to think that there are only two real options: either he is doing what he claims or the whole thing is deliberately fraudulent. And when I hear him thanking people for funding him through Paypal, and all the praying nonsense, my bullshit needle is tending to swing toward the latter.

And MH, you are certainly right about the gullible people out there. It seems there really are a lot of people quite happy to simply take his word for it, the old ‘changing the world for the better’ brigade, only too happy to send him money. It does rather beg the question, what the hell is wrong with folk – they appear not to have the brains they were born with!

I’m the biggest sceptic there is when it comes to this stuff, and to date he certainly hasn’t provided anything to sway me in his favour.  But… time will tell.
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 660

Even looking at a "standard setup" where you add 2 H2 + O2 to a regular gas fuel mixture, I don't believe for a second that that works either.  Whatever extra power you get from the motor is offset by the extra mechanical load on the alternator for a net loss in efficiency.  I know that you will find hundreds if not thousands of proponents that will claim that they get better mileage per gallon when they add their 2 H2 + O2 setups and I don't have a real response to that.  I can only speculate that they are wrong and it is a combination of con artists and wishful thinkers in a happy symbiotic relationship.


MH as much as I appreciate your knowledge and wisdom you are not always right, I disagree with you on this (quote), I have worked with it for a couple years and have actually built and tested it on cars.  One car we run got normally 27 miles to the gallon and even with a poorly designed electrolyzer milage increased to 42 miles to the gallon and we run it for thousands of miles.  Sometimes actually experimenting and building and testing really pays off especially in what we know and don't know.  Yes it needed an effie and and twiddling with it but we are learning and future systems will be much easier and simpler to use.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
I'd just like to add that I tend to agree with both AC and MH on certain points - and I'm not known for my diplomacy.

I think that uniformed critics are every bit as bad as their uniformed and gullible 'believe anyone and everything' counterparts.

Room, with reference to your previous post, this would tend to agree with the findings of Bob Potchen who is manufacturing and installing electrolysers for the heavy haulage industry.  And an 8 mile per gallon wagon that can effectively do even 2 extra miles per gallon is a good longterm saving. Clearly science is throwing us one of its googlies!
« Last Edit: 2010-10-02, 19:19:50 by Farrah Day »
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1089
@milehigh
Quote
Going back to the reality check, it takes more energy to split water to make 2 H2 + O2 than you can get back from it.  When you throw in the fact that you are also trying to run an ICE and push a truck around, forget it.
I remember myself and another person were outside one night in the country and we saw four insanely bright lights appear in a very long row in the sky nearby at 11:23 pm and then an orange spherical object left the four lights horizontally, made a perfect radial curve towards outer space and just took off at a rate of speed I cannot even describe --- there was no rocket plume/exhaust gasses on this perfectly clear night and there was never even a whisper of sound even on a perfectly calm cold winter night when sound carries for many miles. From that moment on I kind of understood that most people do not have a freaking clue about reality, they can barely balance their cheque book let alone understand basic physics. The people who do understand physics would probably try to tell me that this was swamp gas or a weather balloon, lol, what does this say of their twisted reality? The fact of the matter is that two technical people well versed in applied mechanics, physics, rocketry, general and advanced aviation and propulsion systems saw something which defied all logic and that my friend is the ultimate "reality check". The true reality is that your little reality and mine mean little if nothing in the bigger picture and it is more an indication of our own shortcomings if anything, a failure to understand.

Quote
The simple fact that the splitting process produces waste heat is telling you that the process is less than 100% efficient.
It is not telling me anything because an ordinary heat pump produces a great deal of waste heat and yet the COP can still be greater than 300%, what does this tell us?

Quote
There is simply no logical reason that any signal/plate combination should do something above and beyond what is supposed to happen.
Does the fact that you cannot personally think of a logical reason exclude all other logic? it would seem to me that there is no real logic to your arguement because it assumes that all other logic must be the same as yours.

I hope I do not sound to harsh and I understand criticism of what we see as blatantly misleading is important but I think we can go to far when we criticize things without all the facts or when we criticize based on known phenomena when it should be obvious that the device, if it does work, must utilize some effect we are oblivious to.
Regards
AC
« Last Edit: 2010-10-02, 19:05:32 by allcanadian »


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Group: Guest
Room3327:

Adding 2 H2 + 02 systems to cars and trucks is not my area of expertise at all.  I have seen your claims on various YouTube clips and all that I can say is perhaps there is some merit to it, but that's as far as I am prepared to go.

I wonder if it is possible that not all of the gasoline fuel gets burnt and then when you add 2 H2 + O2 you then help burn the unburnt fuel and that gets you your extra mileage.  Then in my thought processes I stop and check myself and say to myself that that's highly unlikely, basically impossible with a modern ICE that not all of the fuel gets burned.

Then I can only offer you up a thought experiment:  What possible mechanism could explain how the compressed gasoline and 2 H2 + O2 mixture in the cylinder could possibly produce more energy than it is "supposed" to.  We know the energy potential in the gasoline and we know the energy potential in the small amount of 2 H2 + O2 that are in the cylinder.  We know that we have to pay for the 2 H2 + O2 and some of the energy in the explosion will be allocated to the alternator.  I am not chemist or physicist, but I can't think of any possible mechanism that would explain getting more energy (or MPG) out of the exploding gasses in the cylinder.  You assume that there is enough normal oxygen available for the gasoline, and the "extra" oxygen will be used up when combining with the hydrogen.  I am not capable of doing the actual thermodynamics calculations with the gas temperature after ignition and the pressure and the expanding volume of the cylinder and the heat vs. mechanical power and all that stuff.  By the same token I know that the engine design engineers and scientists know all of that stuff inside-out.

Another thought of mine is that often design trade-offs are made that the lay person is not aware of.  Like you may be able to get more performance from a car engine with higher cylinder compression ratios, but that may dramatically shorten the life of the valves.  That's a purely hypothetical example, I am not saying that is even true.  So it's also possible that you get higher performance with a 2 H2 + O2 system, but you are going to prematurely wear out or damage some aspect of your engine.  Again, I am just speculating here.  What I am of course implying is that the engine could be tweaked by the engineers to get much better performance, but this is intentionally not being done because in the long run it's less beneficial than you might think.

You have some compelling sounding anecdotal evidence, so it would be interesting to see if it is ever taken to the next level and confirmed with scientific testing.  On top of that, the real reason as to why this phenomenon is happening would have to be explained scientifically.  There are probably devices in engine R&D labs that consist of a single cylinder that you can fire in a single shot and then measure the energy that you get from that single shot.  You can measure all aspects of how the piston fires.  If you could get conformation that you are getting more energy and then take it to the next level and actually explain how you are getting that increase in energy then it would all start to look much more interesting.  From what I have seen so far is that the proponents of these systems just say that it works, but they can't explain how they actually work.  That's in contrast to people that design and test gasoline engines, diesel engines, turbine engines, jet engines, electric motors, etc, etc.  The can tell you exactly how they work and show you plots of the performance, and explain the energy transfer mechanisms.  In my personal opinion the fledgling "HHO industry" would have to grow and mature to the point where they can cover all of the bases that I mentioned above to be "real."

I saw one guy talk about measuring his mileage in over a 300 mile drive without the 2 H2 + O2 injection system engaged.  Then the next day he drove back with it engaged and got better mileage.  He seemed to forget about factoring it what his elevation change was and more importantly what the prevailing winds were and what time of day he was driving and the ambient air pressure.  It the winds were in the same direction over both days then that screws up his test.  The time of day and the ambient air pressure also affect the air density, another very important factor.  So for this particular test his data was invalid, but he was seemingly not aware of this.  That's an example of some of the pitfalls that have to be avoided.

MileHigh
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1089
@FarrahDay
Quote
According to everything he has said, I find it hard to believe that he is unintentionally deceiving us through a lack of understanding, poor engineering or poor science. No, I’m more inclined to think that there are only two real options: either he is doing what he claims or the whole thing is deliberately fraudulent. And when I hear him thanking people for funding him through Paypal, and all the praying nonsense, my bullshit needle is tending to swing toward the latter.
I would agree with the BS needle part, lol, on the other hand people drop thousands on gambling which is a sure bet -- to lose, or the lottery or a $100 night in the bar which gets you a hangover and change. Now when we put this in perspective with "wasting" our hard earned money on possibly fraudulent HHO research which may or may not help billions of people in the end then I can only think that if this "donation" makes a person feel good about themselves then it is a cheap form of entertainment. I had often thought of the consequences of what might happen if we gave more people a chance to succeed but you see the problem is most people expect a reciprocal action to their giving, we always expect something in return but this is not giving, it is little more than a business transaction. There is also this ingrained fear of being decieved by others which we think will make us look weak and foolish when in fact the people who usually succeed are the ones who do not have this childish fear of failure. I am not saying we should give anything to anyone as this is a personal choice we must decide but I also think it is completely wrong to judge others for "giving" when we do not have any facts, giving is a good thing -- it always has been and it is contageous so be careful out there.

Quote
I’m the biggest sceptic there is when it comes to this stuff, and to date he certainly hasn’t provided anything to sway me in his favour.  But… time will tell.
I am a sceptic of sorts concerning all things including that which we call "normal", lets look at the fraudulent claims -- A ford commercial claims 94% efficiency next to a picture of their truck but in fine print this is "combustion efficiency", is this not misleading and fraudulent?. Or the simple phone contract with hundreds of dollars of hidden fee's? Or the banks,lol, I won't even go there. The fact is that what we consider as "normal" is not normal at all and in many cases it is rampant with fraud and deceit on a scale we can hardly imagine. I think it is great that people are sceptical but where do we draw the line? Do we pick and choose with no rhyme or reason to it? Does scepticism only apply to new or odd things we are not familiar with? In the end I think there is always two sides to every story and we make choices as individuals which may not always be right or wrong but they are still our choices to make.
Regards
AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

Be careful when you blindly follow the Masses... sometimes the "M" is silent.
   
Group: Guest
AC:

That's quite an amazing UFO story.  There was some stuff in the news the other week about a UFO sighting at a missile base where some nukes were allegedly temporarily deactivated.  It sounded compelling.  I am in the "open minded" camp on this topic.  If I ever saw one and I was convinced it would be amazing.  Hey, they discovered a "Goldilocks" planet just 20 light-years away recently also.  But who is to say that life requires an environment between 0 and 100 C anyways?  With all of the digital cameras out there now... who knows?  Who knows what goes on in government and military inner sanctums also.  By the same token, I filter out all of the stuff like where people analyze pictures of the Moon or Mars and see three boulders in a straight line and are convinced they are looking at a city or something.  There is a funny case where people look at jpeg compression artifacts and think that they are looking at fields of crops on Mars.  Can't forget all of the space junk in low earth orbit business also.

Quote
Quote
The simple fact that the splitting process produces waste heat is telling you that the process is less than 100% efficient.
It is not telling me anything because an ordinary heat pump produces a great deal of waste heat and yet the COP can still be greater than 300%, what does this tell us?

The heat pump is a really tired worn out argument in my book.  You are making an apples and oranges comparison.  For a heat pump, the environment is the source of your heat and indeed you can pump heat from point A to point B.  It's called a fridge!  lol

Quote
Quote
There is simply no logical reason that any signal/plate combination should do something above and beyond what is supposed to happen.
Does the fact that you cannot personally think of a logical reason exclude all other logic? it would seem to me that there is no real logic to your arguement because it assumes that all other logic must be the same as yours.

Not really AC.  What is clearly implicit in what I am saying is that there has to be a burden of proof imposed on the proponents of 2 H2 + O2 systems.  They have to come up with a logical reason and explain it.  I don't have to impose any constraints on them besides that.  That's the logic behind my argument.

For example, suppose you say that you are tapping into the "water's resonance" with your excitation signal and that gives you electrolysis above and beyond what is expected.  OK, go ahead and make your case.  What is the resonance of the water?  How does your signal interact with it?  Explain the mechanism.  Show some data to back up your claim.  Submit it for peer review.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
This is a bit off topic but please have a look at this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZqYZcYiEwE

It shows con artists in action.  They are charging a capacitor through a diode and claiming it is free energy.  Their "products" are various "plans" that you can purchase so you can build your own "free energy machine."

Notice that there are three phony props in the clip to add credibility for those that are very gullible; 1) a lab coat, 2) a pyramid, and 3) latex gloves.

It's very disheartening to see this kind of stuff in the 21st century.

Sorry this is off-topic to the car running on water discussion but it ties into one of the themes we have been discussing.

MileHigh
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 660
MH,
I personally don't care about getting better milage out of ICE's so I will leave it to the brainiac people out there to tell me why it works. I hope to be driving an electric vehicle very soon and if I can't buy one I will build one.  The facts of the matter are that ICE's are only about 30% efficient at the best and most modern electric motors are 90% efficient right off the shelf.  That directly correlates to a 3 to 1 improvement in mileage, why should I be satisfied with a lousey 50% gain in milage when I can have a 300% gain.  Not to mention there are NO hoses, antifreeze's, radiators, filters, oil or oil changes, transmission fluids and filters, spark plugs, tune-ups, plug wires, fuel pumps, gas tanks, carburators, belts, exhaust pipes, mufflers or catalytic converters to worry about and have go bad.  This list should also tell you why they don't want us to have electric cars.
The reason I have been playing with electrolyzers is to supply my own heating gas, I live in a cold climate, The plan is to have solar or wind or ? providing my own electricity which I will use to charge my electric car, run my home and provide hydrogen gas to heat with.  But the fact of the matter is that adding HHO to an ICE will improve mileage even when the same ICE is driving the process, I know this by my own testing and if you don't believe it why that is your perogative.


---------------------------
"Whatever our resources of primary energy may be in the future, we must, to be rational, obtain it without consumption of any material"  Nicola Tesla

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle."  Edmund Burke
   
Group: Guest
Room3327:

Certainly an electric car is a lower-maintenance vehicle.  Since you live in a cold climate, what are your thoughts about heating the interior of your electric car in the winter time?  Perhaps use some of your hydrogen gas and have a hydrogen gas heater in the car?  In an ICE car you have the luxury of all of that waste heat generation to heat up the interior of your car.

Your plan is something that a lot of people want to do for sure.  When you crunch the numbers today, they probably look a lot better than they did 10 years ago.  By the same token the numbers will look a lot better 10 years from now.

The tough thing is when you factor in your energy requirements, and relate that back to the number of solar panels you need, it's still a quite costly venture.  Then you need all of the equipment for your energy storage and gas generation, etc.  I will take a wild guess that it will cost between $20K and $40K in American dollars.  Then I'm assuming that you have to buy an electric car for $40K USD also.  It's probably still cheaper to buy an electric car and charge it with mains power.  If your mains power is mostly from renewable sources like hydro electricity, then you are already realizing the goal that you are looking for.  Of course I am simplifying things here but the general principles are correct.

MileHigh
   
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-12-11, 02:49:13