Water for gas scam part two
I don’t want this to become water for gas blog, but my post from last week has brought a lot of e-mail questions and a few comments that I would like to answer. You can read last week’s post for more information about the problems with water4gas.
Is water for gas a scam?
The answer to this question depends on how you use your vehicle, and also what kind of vehicle you have. Without writing my own book about the subject, what it boils down to is if you have a four-cylinder car and have long highway commutes, this system is ideal for your application.
If you have a V-8 muscle car and do a lot of city driving than this system is not for you at all. Let me explain the above statement a little further. The water for gas system has an on/off switch and does not regulate the hydrogen fuel as related to throttle position or speed. The system operates best when the vehicle is operating at UN interrupted highway speeds. When the vehicle is at a stoplight or an idle condition you’re supposed to reach over and turn off the hydrogen generator.
So if you were in city traffic are getting stopped at multiple traffic lights. You would constantly be reaching over to turn on and off the water for gas system.
Water for gas problem
Next I will address why the water4gas system works better on a four-cylinder engine. The container recommended for the base system produces a small amount of hydrogen brown gas. On a four-cylinder engine, less fuel is required overall and the amount of generated hydrogen complements this operation and will provide a noticeable increase in fuel economy. With a V8 engine you will need multiple tanks and generators to achieve the same results.
Another added benefit of using the system on a four-cylinder engine is that there is plenty of room to mount the hydrogen generator and run the wiring and tubing that is necessary to deliver the gas. I have heard a few complaints of people with V-6 and V-8 engines that they are having troubles finding a place to locate the water for gas system. In fact many people with these larger engines have decided to either remote mount the battery and use that area to mount the water4gas system or remote mount the system in the trunk, which will then require long lengths of tubing and wiring to make it work.
Water for gas review
I know it’s hard to believe that something like this works, but the fact of the matter is that it does work excellent for certain applications. Also note that this system is hand built and may require some tweaking to get it to perform to its best ability. If you are not a do-it-yourself kind of person there are pre-built systems that are ready to install, but will still require time, energy and knowledge to install.
Even if you buy a pre-built water for gas system, you still need to purchase the books that explain the theory and operation of the system so that you can achieve the best results from your efforts.
The water for gas system is not a snap your fingers solution. But with the rising cost of fuel and ever worsening economy it sure seems like it is worth the effort. If you have a four-cylinder vehicle and do a fair amount of highway driving the returns for your time and money invested in the system should be realized with in a couple of months.
I was notified that a new website has secured the resale rights for the system and offers it at half the price. See what other people are saying about the water for gas system on the new run car on water website. You can also view two videos showing the system in action on my is water for gas a scam report page.
Tags: fuel economy, fuel prices, hydrogen systems, increase gas mileage, water for gas scam, water4gas
April 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I’ve seen these before and was skeptical. It’s nice to see someone investigating these products. It is even nicer to find out that they do…something… and they actually work to some degree.
I may blog about this later, if I do, you’ll get a source link in the article.
Cheers!
May 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
The reason you think this is even possible is because you don’t understand physics or chemistry. I’m a chemist - it takes the same amount of energy to conver water into hydrogen and oxygen as you get out of it. Combine that with the fact that you engine is at best only 50% efficient and your alternator is probably only 80% efficient so for every 4 units of energy you are creating you’ve spent 10 units creating it. If this would work, then you could have a system big enough to produce enough hydrogen that you could cut your fuel switch and your engine would continue to produce enough hydrogen to run. This is called a perpetual motion machine and they DON’T exist. It is a violation of Newton’s laws of physics.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Hello Bob: I thank you for your comment on the water4gas system. I would like to point out that yes you are correct water for gas is not a perpetual motion machine and does not eliminate the use of gasoline.
The idea is that it provides a cheep form of external combustible fuel to be mixed and used in conjunction with the vehicles fuel supply.
This hydrogen gas is produced inexpensively and when it is burned allows the vehicles computer to reduce the injector on time there for increasing fuel economy and reducing fuel cost for highway trips.
As stated in my blog post the water for gas system is not perfect! But for people that need to do something to reduce their fuel costs it can help increase miles per gallon. If I find a better way of doing this I will be sure to write a post about it.
May 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
But you have to increase the injector duties in order to fuel the extra load on the alternator. In the “best” case scenario (an engine and alternator that are 100% efficient) it would be a wash, but since neither are 100% efficient, you are burning 10 KWh worth of gasoline to power the extra load on the alternator to get 4 KWh worth of hydrogen out. Let me show you the math and maybe that will convince you:
You send 10 KWh worth of gasoline to the engine. 50% of that is lost to heat and the other 50% is usable. The usable 50% is 5 KWh which go to spinning the alternator. The alternator is only 80% efficient, so of the 5 KWh of power sent to the alternator, it creates only 4 KWh. Now that 4 KWh of energy is used to create 4 KWh of hydrogen. So you burned 10 extra KWh gasoline to create only 4 KWh hydrogen.
Now, that being said, if you had a system that only activated when the car was coasting (ie, using the alternator as a brake for the car) and you could store the hydrogen produced until you were accelerating again, you might have a very small benefit. Of course, this would be much easier to do with electricity and an extra battery that only charged during decel situations.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I would like to direct a comment to Bob.
Bob I too had and still have some of your concerns. Water for gas could be a hoax. It could be a very well crafted marketing scheme designed to lure hopeful people like you and I to buy and forever after be snookered. Leaving people like you and I to curse ourselves for our willingness to hope someone cared enough about us to sell us something that really worked.
Water for fuel seems in some ways a bedtime story. Let me remind everyone the Wright Brothers also were called hoaxes, that nobody could fly to the moon, Einstein was considered stupid and mentally slow
because he could not walk until 7 and if I remember could not read till 14. Yet nobody would call any of the above listed a hoax today.
I believe water for gas is real but by no means perfect. Quite honestly it takes men like you to better make the idea work more efficiently.
While most Americans realize life is getting tough, this is just the beginning of our troubles as a nation. In time war could be at our doorsteps. Yes our nation could become a target for invasion.
Why? In the 1930’s the largest oil discovery in the world was made in the adjoining corners of Colorado and Wyoming. The United States has but does not use 70% of the world oil reserve. With an economic crash such as Russia had in the 80’s, it’s concievable we as a nation could not even pay our light bill, not to mention our military.
If our economy crashes before sane thinking heads prevail in our business and governmental communities’
it will be up to the common man, you and I to take our nation forward to the next era of learning to do what was once thought impossible.
Water for fuel is one of those ideas that needs our support.
Sincerely
James
May 14th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Wow James Great post! If we where at starbucks I would buy you a double latte. Not to many people talk about the United States owning 70% of the worlds oil reserve and why we do not use it. It would seem that the owners of this oil are waiting for the worlds supply to run down to the point where it can be sold for 500$ a barrel. Then they will pull it from the ground. And be kings with their money!
May 14th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Man, you guys are way out there in la la land. You can’t just “will” something to work because you want it to. I think it is impossible to extract more energy out of something than you put into because it IS. It is called the conservation of energy. Neither you nor I will discover any willpower magic that will overcome the laws of thermodynamics that will make “what we once thought impossible to become possible”. For every one “Wright brothers” case where everyone thought it couldn’t be done and were proven wrong, there are 1000 cases where everyone thought it couldn’t be done and it turned out that it really couldn’t be done. This is one of those cases.
And the United States has no where near 70% of the proven reserves - it is actually less than 5%. Saudi Arabia alone has more than 10X more oil reserves than we have. Where do you guys come up with this stuff? If you just invent your own “truth” to fit whatever bizzare conspiracy theory of the week you are following, then I can understand how you would think water would make a good fuel. If I was a sociopath like the authors of the books you have read and thought it was ok to publish lies just to make a quick buck, I can assure you that I could convince you of just about anything you wanted to believe. Would you like to believe carbon dioxide can be used as a fuel in “reverse combustion” where the waste product is oxygen? I can assure you that I could convince you that it is possible and that we could reverse the greenhouse effect by doing it (but there is a government conspiracy against it) because I’m a chemist and could easily manipulate the facts enough to convince someone who doesn’t understand chemistry. Lucky for you, I’m not a cheating crook like the people trying to sell you guys this garbage. The people who wrote these books know this stuff is fictional, but they also know that people with buy this stuff and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
I work in medical research and had a coworker who lost his job (probably because he wasn’t a very good scientist) and now he his selling some hocus pocus diabetes remedy that is nothing more than a placebo. I know it is a hoax and I know that he knows it is a hoax, but he was desperate for money, so he did it anyway. This guy has even been on Oprah Winfry selling his snake oil. I know a scam artist when I see one. He clearly doesn’t have a conscience to cheat sick people out of their money and to even do them harm by telling them to stop taking insulin when they still need it.
May 15th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I assume this http://www.aspencore.org/images/pdf/OilShale.pdf is what you guys are talking about. You should read that article all the way through.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:24 am
bob, you are the god of science, why are those hundreds of people who use this system lying to us? i bet they do not care about your science when they pass the gas station and just smile. are you saying that this system will not improve fuel milage? now careful , you dont want to have to eat your words.
May 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
The water for gas idea is one of the best scams to ever come along!
May 21st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Why are hundreds of people using this? Because it is easy to get scammed but very hard to admit that you’ve been scammed. There is also the kind of placebo effect that can occur anytime someone is manipulated by the power of suggestion. There is more to the placebo effect than just “believing it will work, so in you mind it works”. People will do things to contribute to making it work - they’ll be more conscious in the way they drive. That alone can improve gas mileage by 30+%. They’ll round down gallons and round up miles when calculating mileage. “Belief” biases have been proven to exist even when trained scientists are doing research and are aware of their snares. People will use their “best tank” data (ie, one time it worked out to 45mpg, so a person claims the car regularly gets that mileage) instead of the average data. There are so many ways that people can inadvertantly cheat to get the results to avoid undermining the expense and effort of buying and installing the system (and of course not wanting to admit you are wrong after hyping something like this to a bunch of people). These phenomona are the scourge of science and always have been. There are numerous examples of scientists even duping the scientific community because they fell into these traps, and some of them still won’t admit it even after being fully discredited (look into “cold fusion” if you want an example - in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t a “conspiracy theory” crowd claiming that the cold fusion experiment was successful and that the government is supressing it for XYZ reasons, because conspiracy theorists are usually nothing more than people using really bad science).
May 25th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
The Water4Gas guy(s) have apparently created tons of websites and pages of different names and covers (like this one) all designed to promote their marketing. They even apparently have a webpage titled “HHO Cell Sucks” that is a 1st position Sponsored Link on a Google search of “hho car”. They apparently also have many sidebar Sponsored Links in the first two pages of the search. After studying this very “aggressive” marketing on the net, I’m betting this site, though the site title is designed to look 3rd Party, is one of theirs too.
May 26th, 2008 at 8:19 am
To Exum: I don’t blame you for your jaded opinion on the water4gas system and network of sites. I am just a mechanic from Florida that purchased the water for gas system and think it has some value to offer.
Since I purchased this system, let me give you some incite on why there are so many websites now pushing this product. The purchase of the water gas system comes with resale rights. This means if you buy it you can resell it as if it was your own. This was probably not a good Idea since there is now an army of sales pages that diminish the value of the program!
I do provide links to the original website but do not sell the water4gas system myself. For any one worrying about the system being a scam go ahead and buy it and then return it if you think it has no value. The refund is provided by the payment processor not the website. A refund is no problem!
May 29th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I was discussing the utility of electric cars vs hydrogen powered cars (legitimate hydrogen powered cars, not the stuff you guys are talking about) on a car enthusiast website, and someone being funny said, “the real wave of the future will be strapping wind powered generators to you car - the faster you go the more energy they produce!” I replied, “you shouldn’t say stuff like that because there are actually people out there who will believe it”, which reminded me of you guys
May 29th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Hey Bob: I may not agree with everything you say but at times you do have a great sense of humor. What did you say your wind powered car system was called “wind4gas”
May 29th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Just one observation on the HHO conversion. In one of the posts Bob claims that the use of the lights doesn’t cause a drain on his electrical system and make the car work harder.
I run a Prius and I can assure you Bob that the laws of Physics do apply. When it’s wet and I need my lights and wipers on I get a significant drop in gas mileage. Typically from 47.2 average to about 42.8. Empiriocally is this a good test, not really but evidenciary certainly as it’s consistent over all seasons. The laws of Physics won’t be denied.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
A few observations:
1) The basic premise of the HHO system is that you’re increasing the combustable nature of the air mixture that will be blended with the fuel mixture. Basic physics tells us that this will indeed reduce the amount of fuel necessary to create the explosion that drives the pistons.
2) An alternator is a variable rate generator. However, it’s usually designed for a minimum output based on a given engine RPM range. At idle, it should provide more than enough power for all electrical items on the vehicle. If it doesn’t, the engine probably has the wrong alternator size installed.
3) A Prius is a horrible example. The primary reason your mileage is reduced when you have to use lights/wipers etc… is because they present a larger drain on your batteries. Because of that the gas engine has to run more to offset the drain. On a regularly fueled vehicle that simply doesn’t happen unless the alternator installed is not of sufficient size to carry the vehicle’s load. And if that’s the case, you’ll end up with a dead battery over time.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:06 am
Adrien, I never said that. I said the exact opposite of that.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
In reply to Ed:
1) “Basic physics tells us that this will indeed reduce the amount of fuel necessary”
Actually basic physics tells us that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. You’re trying to tell us that we can create hydrogen energy from nothing (or from less energy than you get out of it) which violates the basic laws of physics.
2) “An alternator is a variable rate generator. However, it’s usually designed for a minimum output based on a given engine RPM range. At idle, it should provide more than enough power for all electrical items on the vehicle.”
Right, it is variable so that it only uses the minimal amount of energy necessary. Anything that adds to the electrical load will increase the demand on the alternator and consume more gasoline. Besides, the kinds of improvement in highway gas mileage you guys are claiming would require about 20 free hp. That would be equal to about 15kW! That is no small drain on the alternator.
3) “On a regularly fueled vehicle that simply doesn’t happen unless the alternator installed is not of sufficient size to carry the vehicle’s load. And if that’s the case, you’ll end up with a dead battery over time.”
Are you saying “sufficiently sized” alternators violate the laws of thermodynamics and produce more energy than you engine supplies them? It doesn’t matter how big or small your alternator is, if it produces 1kW of power, it is robbing at least that much from the engine.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I am fascinated by this idea and really wish I was able to to the research that Bob has been doing. I think that there must bee many guys trying the system and wish we could get a central data source for all of the information. I am not trained in science or technology, but I am a hopeful skeptic. Even if one was able to increase the mileage by 15 to 25%, think of the savings for the average driver. i live in the Nashville area and have friends that commute over 100 miles a day. A savings of even 15% at todays average for our area 3.94 a gallon would really be something.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Bob,
I like your input, you are a good educator for a lot of people. I think the analysis of the viability of this process in not in the theory but in the application. For example, I bought a new 84 Olds, 4dr Cutlass Cierra Brougham and out of the lot and a 380 mile trip it got 39 mpg. On future trips with 3 adults, trunk and half of the back seat full of luggage, and the air on it still got 38 mpg. I can’t explain it but I bet you couldn’t find a half a dozen other Cierra’s made that could do that. I put over 200,000 miles on that car and in the end is was still getting 36 to 37 mpg. The point I am trying to make is, gasoline engines aren’t very efficient and when we do something to increase their efficiency it is amazing. All this process might be doing is acting llike a catalyst and making the fuel conbustion more efficient. Sometimes, a small amount of catalyst will have a dramatic effect. They are mixing a combustible gas in a vapor which will make it more volatile.
I understand that there are some who tried it and said it didn’t work. Wouldn’t it be strange if all these failures were on the same type of engine. Plus a system like this will need to have a high quality connection and material installation to properly work. Ever have a vacuum leak somewhere on your car?
Using the same engine, race car engine designers will totally change the piston and head design for different fuels to get the maximum power. The way automobile engines are designed could affect the way this system performs on different vehicles. Also, does the type and brand of gas affect the system?
I believe mrg when he says the other items with the converter will help improve milage. You already have tweaker components for computers to improve milage by 5% or more.
Thanks to all contributors and keep the information coming.
Jim
June 10th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Jim’s reply to Bob makes the point very well. Bob seems to think that this HHO system is denying the laws of physics by making more energy, as Hydrogen, than the amount of energy you use, as electricity, to make the H2. This is not what is going on. The HHO gas is making the chemical reaction between air and gasoline more efficient. The exhaust gas of ANY Internal Combustion engine is filled with energy (Heat and unburned fuel). It would be an interesting experiment to collect 20 or so cubic feet of automobile exhaust in some container, and then light it off with an appropriate amount of air, just to see what kind of fireball (energy) it produced. For years, turbochagers have tapped that heat/velocity energy of exhaust gas to compress the intake air. I think all this HHO system is doing is perhaps taking advantage unburnt fuel that the present, inefficient I.C. engine does not.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Oh my god people… listen to yourselves!
Bob makes many excellent, logical points that are supported by actual laws of physics. And yet you are still in denial.
YOU CAN’T GET MORE ENERGY OUT OF A SYSTEM THAN YOU PUT INTO THAT SYSTEM
When you create the Hydrogen from water, you are using energy. It turns out that you’re using more energy at this point than you’ll get back when the gasoline and hydrogen combust. Sure, it may make the gasoline combust more efficiently, but you forget that you’re using energy to create hydrogen.
How difficult is that to understand? It’s Physics 101.
Please send me $100 and I’ll show you how to make food from fecal matter. No, I swear it works and will solve the world’s food problems! You can simply just eat your own waste and never have to make food again…
June 16th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Hey bob, it’s not free energy. It does require power to create the hydrogen, but the typical alternator on a car will produce enough power to maintain the battery even under a full load condition. It happens all the time in motorhomes. I had an Alumalite motorhome with a dual-terminal alternator. It charged 4 batteries (1 for chassis and 3 for coach) with no problems. They are expensive to buy, but any decent alternator shop can modify a large delco into a dual terminal.
I just don’t think it has to get that involved. You are talking like the power requirement to produce the hydrogen is ridiculously large, and it isn’t. If I were to build one of these, I would simply run a dual deep cycle battery setup to compensate for any extra draw.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:37 am
[...] trying to research it comes away with "scam is not a scam". Here’s a comment I found on a blog [...]
June 27th, 2008 at 2:33 am
[...] Source: Auto Repair Info Blog Spot [...]
July 7th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Here is the million dollar question that none of you will be able to honestly answer and will disprove this once and for all. HOW does adding hydrogen gas to the combustion mixture improve the efficiency of burning gasoline?
Keep in mind these FACTS before posting something that is untrue:
1. Only a tiny tiny percentage (less than 1%) of the gasoline from your intake charge remains unburned in a modern engine. Increasing the amount of gasoline burned will have minimal effects to gas mileage at this point.
2. The VAST majority of energy lost in a gasoline engine is lost to thermal energy. In theory, a person could develop a way to increase the expression of kinetic energy while decreasing the expression of thermal energy, BUT, H2 burns HOTTER than gasoline.
So again, no more BS about how it “just works” (see my previous post about the placebo effect to see why things that don’t work can seem to work) and give me some real scientific explanation as to WHY this would work. Saying that it increases combustion efficiency and explaining the unlying reason it increases combustion efficiency are two completely different things.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
I found this nice sticky post on the Mythbusters website that everyone should read. He goes through all the thermodynamics calculations and proves that this is impossible:
http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/2321969559
July 11th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Bob, I like your blog here. It is very interesting and your comments very good. I looked at the diagram of the water4gas product and did not bother purchasing the books. I just used what I could see to build my own HHO generator. I did however go through several trial and errors. I did test the output with a match and I still have the lid to the mason jar stuck in the ceiling of my garage, quite the explosion. I found a site that showed this guy making stainless steel plates approximately eight of them kept separate by nylon bolts and nylon washers and they were stacked with the negative charge and positive charge alternating between every other plate. I tried to make this work, however I had no stainless steel so I used galvanized steel. Talk about rust, it took about 2 hours of running the system to completely rust the plates to where they no-longer produced any oxygen. Also the amount of amps being drawn from the battery boiled the water in about 10minutes. I finally found some stainless steel wire and have three cells(all that will fit) on my 2005 Nissan Maxima with a 3.5 litre V6 Engine. After several months of driving exactly 30 miles twice per day mostly highway, I have come to the conclusion that the water4gas system, now I use only the generator itself, no other electronic devices, has given me a 50% increase in fuel economy. Normal gas mileage for my vehicle, using synthetic oil, and a K&N high flow air filter on the highway is approximately 27 miles to the gallon. And with the water4gas system my gas mileage is consistently 42mpg. making it so I get about 675 miles to a tank vs the normal 450 miles to a tank. I am always looking at ways to improve my fuel economy and have now added the Acetone & Xlene mixture to the fuel to see if this also works. I have a suggestion, If anyone is using this system and using a switch separate from the ignition switch, as I am, remember to turn if off when you turn off the car. If you don’t you will kill the battery, I you kill it too many times, it is hard to recharge.
Is there any truth to the posting in water4gas, that it steam cleans the engine and keeps the engine cooler, allowing the engine to perform more efficiently? I have noticed that the engine runs smoother with the generator operating vs not operating. I am also trying the aluminum foil wrapped around the O2 sensor on the exhaust manifold to trick it into making the computer think the gas is too rich and causing the computer to use less fuel. I think the reason the generator works to save fuel economy is, at least in an electronically fuel injected car, the computer senses that there is additional fuel and air in the combustion chamber or intake manifold and reduces the amount of fuel to compensate for the additional fuel and air…I am only guessing, but is does seem reasonable.
Sorry for the long-winded post.
July 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Dean, thanks for the review showing that Water4gas does NOT work and IS just a scam intended to steal hardworking Americans’ money.
ps. See, two can play at that game
July 17th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Bob, I read Deans comment and he has had somewhat the same results iv’e had. I have experienced an increase of approx 30% in my fuel economy with my hydrogen system in my car. I also looked at the myth busters link you posted. There is good content there however something was left out. They forgot to try a hydrogen kit on a car. I KNOW , WELL MATH SAYS BEES CAN’T FLY EITHER. have a look at my site for some more interesting info.
July 18th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Bob.
you have a scientific mind! Have you tried this system out? What are your results and specs? I would like to know.. Have you done a practical application test? If money is you concern i am sure there is a way to get you the supplies you need for your experiment for free.. remember to have a control group..
July 21st, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Real scientists put blinds on their studies (so that you don’t influence the results by driving differently, for example). Has anyone blinded their study and still had good results? If you don’t know how to do that, here is a suggestion. Put a switch on the ground wire for the electrolysis chamber where you can’t easily see it and tell someone else to either flip the switch or leave it, but not to tell you which he/she did right after you fill up with gas. Then don’t look at the switch until the next time you fill up. Or better yet, don’t look at all - let the other person monitor the results alternating between on and off until you’ve ran several tanks, then you can look at the results. That is how a scientist performs studies and is why they usually find that scams like this don’t work. They might work for you, but that is because of user bias.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Well Bob .. Just found this Vehicle here just for you. It runs on complete water. Its a H20 test model in Japan. Dont know or care how it works. But it works. If you can believe reuters news service who can you believe. .. http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C15557/ ..
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
The best way to prove this wrong is to try it on your car. I have Isuzu trooper 4×4, 1998 model and the first time i saw this i could not believe but being an engineer i wanted prove by tests. So i bought 2 tins from the supper market and got some used air filter gauze to make the system. At first i didnt notice much difference in mileage but there was a noticeable change in the gearing and sound coming from the vehicle, till a had to make a 45km journey to another town. I filled the tank to just over a quarter tank believe you me when i was coming back thats when the gauge was touching the quater line, i didnt have anything to measure with but that was amazing, i had done the over 90km stretch with something like less than 6liters of diesel and i was doing something like 120km/hr (abt 0m/h).
So please guys, get down and prove this whole thing wrong before you type something here. After all you will be talking with facts.
Mumba charles.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I prefer to believe THIS one (see video caption near bottom):
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/professor-doubts-water-car-claims/
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I have a 2001 Ford Focus. Its MPG rating is 25 City/31 Hwy. I have been driving it for 4 years, getting about 28 - 30 mpg; never over 32, even on long highway trips. I had been reading all kinds of stuff on HHO on all kinds of sites and finally decided to be stupid and buy the water4gas ebooks. What the heck; it was only a hundred bucks. I finished installing the system and tested it yesterday. I did the test twice, topped off my tank each time the exact same way at the same station using the same pump, and I didn’t look at the pump meter while I was topping off. The results were almost identical: exactly 70.2 miles for each trip using 1.748 and 1.750 gallons of regular gas respectively. That comes out to just a tad over 40 mpg. This car has NEVER gotten 40 mpg. If there was only a couple mpg difference, I might agree with the “placebo effect”, but a repeatable 25% plus change does not lie. As simple and inefficient as the water4gas system is (it is, after all, a mason jar filled with water & 2 SS electrodes), it works. If it disagrees with “proven” scientific theory, so be it. I really don’t care. I will accept realilty over theory this time around, because if the theory really says that this doesn’t work, there’s something wrong with it.
July 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Blaine, for many reasons, the error when you fill up your tank is at least + or - 0.5gallons from the last time you filled it (ie, if you have a 16 gallon tank, a fill up might hold anywhere from 15.5 to 16.5 gallons, and often times the error is even greater). In other words, you filled up with 1.75 gallons + or - 0.5 gallons and your efficiency was then anywhere from 31 to 52mpg. In this instance, it was probably more like 31mpg. If you want to reduce the error, make longer trips between fill ups. Even then, the precision from tank to tank is still poor enough that you should at least use a running average of 3 or 4 tanks.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
For those saying “the only way to prove this wrong is to try it yourself”, here is another scenario for you:
I assert that you don’t need to eat external food. If you eat your own feces you will never starve - you can keep recycling the same energy over and over. If you don’t believe this, then TRY IT YOURSELF! Your response to that is not unlike my response you telling me to “try it myself”.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I have not seen anyone comment on what happens when the HHO is sparked and converted back into water. I believe you are actually getting double energy out of the reaction and you may not be getting enough of the HHO in to really make the large gasoline fuel savings. By double energy, I’m talking about what is happening with the HHO. When you explode the mixture you get energy from the explosion and the HHO converts back to water molecules. The secondary energy would come from the water molecules being converted to steam under explosive heat and pressure. The steam expands as the cylinder goes down, giving more energy. If you are not seeing any water or steam in the exhaust, then the steam is still superheated when it is exhausted. On initial start you will probably see water in the exhaust, but once the whole exhaust system is hot the exhaust will stay dry clear out the exhaust pipe. Perhaps both the conversion back to water and the steam expansion may be causing the cooling effect. I think if you tried this on engines prior to EPA regulations, 1945 to 1970 vintages (there abouts), you would see better results. You may see better results on diesels if they don’t have so much EPA junk aboard. That oxygen sensor could be creating a lot of problems on the newer engines. There needs to be a way of accelerating and decelerating the HHO generation. The Stan Meyer developments may hold the key to that. The statement there was a volkswagon engine dunebuggy run entirely on HHO. http://www.rexresearch.com/meyerhy/meyerhy.htm it’s more complicated than the other explanations I’ve seen so far.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Wow, this is lots to read, good thing I’ve played around with this stuff and know how it works, you see Mr. Chemist, your right, you can’t get more energy out of electrolysis then you put into it. thats standard electrolysis. Now if you know what browns gas really is, you realize its not “standard”, in standard electrolysis the electrical energy is used to separate the H20 Molecule into H H 0, which in turn get reformed into H2 and o2, both gas molecules, which is what generates all the heat. in forming browns gas the H H and O molecules don’t form, using far less energy and generaing less heat. the Mono Atomic form of Hydrogen and Oxygen have vastly different properties then the Molecule versions. for one, the browns gas implodes, as well has other properties of being able to very quickly take any element on earth (even tungsen) and heat it to melting point, even to sublimation., this is because the H atom is so tiny, tinyer then anything else that it can penetrate into other substances and break them down from the inside out, obviously an implosion is not desireed in you cyliner head, but haveing the H atoms reacting inside the gasoline molecules sure is, and thats why you need so little of it to make such a big difference. and if you think only 1% of fuel is wasted in a gasoline engine, your reading too much crap that other lab techies and rats have written. remember that a liquid fuel is being delivered to the cyliner(not a vapor) just a thousands of a second before its ingited, gasoline evaporates slowly, so a tremendous amount of liquid fuel needs to be injected to get the proper amount of vapor off the injector spray in that short time for detonation. why do you think cars need catalatic converters to burn off excess fuel and the its possible for egnines to overheat when running lean? when an mixutre is lean then there is too much oxygen, but more power and heat, why is this? its because there is first the detonation of the fuel vapor and the oxygen, afterwards there is leftover oxygen in the cylinder for the liquid fuel to use to burn, thats where you get all the heat, so don’t try to tell me engines only waste 1%. get ouf of the freaking lab and get dirty under the hood of a car to learn how stuff really works. Just so you know, I also agree that you cannot extract more engergy then you put into something, however, once you can describe to me the specific force that holds 2 positivly charged protons together, i’ll listen to what you have to say about what “can’t” be done. obvoiusly there’s forces out there that are tremendous and unexpainable, some call this ether, or the zero point energy field. who’s to say it can’t and has never be tapped into?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:41 am
That’s a bunch of BS. You DON’T form monoatomic hydrogen and oxygen - if you did, it would start a chain reaction and explode! Both monoatomic hydrogen and oxygen are super unstable and could only exist for microseconds before they react with each other. “Brown’s Gas” is just a trade name for a stoichiometric mixture of diatomic hydrogen and diatomic oxygen. All of this garbage is what tipped me off that this was a scam in the first place. If the inventors of this garbage were legitimate scientists, they wouldn’t have made up all this “HHO” crap - they would have instead told the truth about what is really happening. The fact that the whole foundation of what they are doing is based in deception should be enough for everyone to realize they are scamming you.
Current engines burn 99% or more of the fuel that enters the engine. I’ve said this before and I stand by it. Look at state emissions requirements for older cars that don’t have catalytic converters if you don’t believe me - they usually require less than 1% hydrocarbons (ie, 1000 parts/million). If old carburated cars burn 99+% of their fuel, what do you think newer lean burning computer controlled fuel injected cars do? The reason we have catalytic converters is because that even at 0.1%, it would add up to millions of gallons of unburned fuel that would be emitted into the atmosphere every year (considering that in the US, we burn about 180 billion gallons of fuel a year).
July 31st, 2008 at 7:48 am
Slinky Said: “however, once you can describe to me the specific force that holds 2 positivly charged protons together,”
This is explained in any quantum mechanics text book. Instead of rehashing through pages of calculus, think of it this way - why won’t a fan with only one fan blade work? It is unstable and not balanced. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron is very similar. By combining two hydrogens, you get two elections which is much more stable. All things equilibrate toward greater stability.
August 1st, 2008 at 7:17 am
Hey Bob, since you seem like you like to play with numbers, see if you may calculate this for me. as everyone knows what centriptial force is, (an acceleration force towards the center of the radius) also knowing how powerful it can be. eg. taking a metal disc 1″ thick and 12″ across and tossing it in some bearings and spinning it up horizontally, well you know there will be a RMP where the kenetic energy of the centripital force are so huge the disc would be destroyed and fly to bits. meanwhile the amount of energy taken to spin this metal disc up would be very little in comparison to the amount of energy it would take to physically tear all that metal apart that just flew apart on its own by being spun up. I beleive this is because the centripital force is an acceleration force thats building and being stored inside the metal of the disk. now imagine that disk to have hollowed channels to hold a fluid and would keep it rotating with the disk, like water or a lite oil, as we all know, fluids have zero friction on themselves even under millions of pounds of pressure. so now you could spin up this disc with the fluid inside it storing the tremendous amount of energy, however, the fluid could be channeled out the outer edge of the disk in a small nozzel with no friction and exit the disk at a right angle to its rotation, serving to propel the disk even faster. the center of the disk would have a pipe thats in fluid communication with the channels inside the disk as well as a lower supply resivor to keep the disk continually filled with fluid. , remember that this could even be done inside a vacum and the disk could be run on magnetic bearings, effectivley putting all external resistances to zero. as you know, if you were to spin something at 10,000 rpm in an environment with zero resistance, it would stay spinning that speed forever, on its own. now imagine that same rotating mass spewing out water of its nozzels on the edge of itself at say 1,000 psi. well, you’d think that disk would kind of have a mind of its own after that wouldn’t you? at this point i say you don’t need magnetic bearings or a vacum, anymore, there could be so much energy relesed that, well, you do the math…
by the way, i don’t think this is making “free energy” its merely a creative energy transfer that the “Laws of Physics” or whatever else, make possible.
of couse it would be “$$$$ Free Energy” beasue it would not cost a penny to continue to make.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:22 pm
If the hydrogen HHO systems improve gas mileage it is likely partly due to the catalyst effect from the small amount of hydrogen produced, not from burning the hydrogen as fuel. It simply enables a more complete burn of the gas. After installing an HHO system there are other effects that would improve gas mileage, not related to the HHO system itself. More scientific results (controlled, double-blind tests) are needed versus anecdotal reports.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Well, to put all this to the test, my neighbor has bought one of the systems and I believe he is having it professionally installed this morning and we will find out within a week or so.
If this system is legitimate and his works I will also be buying one of the $560 total kits and will be installing this on my vehicle.
He has a 2008 v-8 pickup.
Time will tell for me, as I’ll be seeing this work or not work, first hand.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I’ve been reading everything I can get on the subject and have put a duel cell unit on my Tracker. My mileage is up some but I’m most impressed by the quieting of the engine and a different power curve. I’ve built several cells and am liking what I see. Go to e-bay, search hydrogen in e-bay motors. There’s plenty of garbage there but a lot of very useful information. A lot of sellers go into great detail and you can patch together what works , what doesn’t, whats B.S., etc.
Broad announcements about what is possible and what isn’t can be odd. ‘You can’t get more energy out of something than is put in’ I live between two hydro-electric producing dams that have been doing that for 50 years. Man couldn’t exceed a velocity of 50 mph because his lungs would collapse. Aircraft carriers can’t float. What works, works and you can tell a bumble that he can’t fly…but he does. This field is full of hustlers, sure. Nobody can get rich from it. Nearly all of the material is in general usage. Nobody can corner a method or a material or part. It looks like it needs more willing positive research to me. If you “follow the money” it doesn’t lead anywhere.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
All I can say to everyone blogging on this site is that we have an energy crisis and we will run out of oil, coal, and natural gas. So someone needs to think of something. Bob you need to remember that not everything has been invented yet. I believe someone thought that back in the 1800’s. And though this browns gas may not be the answer someone in lets say researching type job should maybe try this as a controlled experiment under and with the support of a credible university and or government oversight. Hell who knew 50 years ago I’d be sitting here using a laptop PC connected wirelessly to the intenet and texting on a cell phone. Look how far technology came and I’m pretty sure it came from optimism not pessimism, and probably tons of trail and error. Good thing the Earth isn’t flat anymore.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:47 am
is this system safe or can it blow up
August 5th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I think it’s as safe as other energy sources. Wiring needs insulated, gas must stay in gas lines, etc. It is a combustable and I find that flashback protection is a valuable precaution. It is flexible but must be managed properly like any combustable.
There is risk in what you put in a cell. Use nothing but stainless steel inside the cell and start with only pure baking soda as a catalyst. You will be making gas and if you used zinc or galvanized metal in the cell you will produce some nasty fumes. I suggest reading up on the subject before you start. It’s a very interesting subject though. If you do it right you don’t have gas in a volume to blow up. It’s an on-demand system so the only gas around is in the top of the cell or lines going to the engine and you can make them safe with check valves or a bubbler.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:40 am
bob you are right saying “its impossible to extract more energy out of something than you put in ” but what about my air con unit although it uses inverter technologly, it requires 2.4kw of electricity to produce 6.2 kw of heating or 4kw cooling?something must be very effiecent here????
August 10th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Bob I very interested in your neighbors results on the Water for Gas. I have some understanding of stoichiometric formulas (I’m the CE in the Family and my Brother is the ME) and what the hydrogen produced would due to fuel burn efficiencies and any adverse affects on the engine. I’m looking forward to your response!!!
August 14th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
BOB,
I Hope this works out for you.
Im going to build one out of scrap materials from work.
using 304 ss fill rod. 3/32. let me know how yours turns out..
August 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
I read about this HHO system and got all excited and ordered a bunch of books and equipment and stuff, and my boyfriend who used to be a mechanic installed it for me and we read all the books to make sure we drove it right. I kept really good records of the miles I drove vs. the gas I paid, both before we installed the system and after the installation. It didn’t save any gas, my car actually got worse mpg, and then it broke on the highway! It was really awful, steam was coming out of the hood and everything I thought it would blow up! And when I took it to my car dealership to get fixed they laughed at me and told me I got scammed
August 16th, 2008 at 2:53 am
First off I couldnt tolerate reading all of the bickering but I wanted to respond to a couple of things that bob said. Like mrg (or someone else) said, projects like these need people like you, ie chemist and engineers to improve the processes.
1. Alternator are an example of some engineer find a way to make an engine more efficient. By attatching a dynamo powered by something the car was doing anyhow increased the efficiency of the engine. You are a chemist not a physicist or electrical/mechanical engineer. The alternator does not create energy, it converts kinetic energy to electric. Simple.
2. Like you pointed out, the alternator is not 100% efficient. Though it is variable, there is a minimum draw that often exceeds the electrical needs of the vehicle. This is the energy that is being used to create the HHO.
3. You made a reference to wind energy being bs… Have you ever heard of ram air or turbo boosters? Ram air is proven to increase power and fuel efficiency. Turbo boosters use the exhaust (another source of wasted energy) to compress air even further. I installed a ram air intake and it improved my gas mileage (hwy) by 3-6 mpg depending on how Im driving.
Anyhow, I dont understand how adding hydrogen to the fuel mixture increases gas mileage, though I assume its similar to the idea of NO boosters (I dont understand how adding N makes your vehicle more efficient either). Im not the chemist, you are (however your discipline probably doesnt require much knowledge of what makes things blow up more efficiently). If someone could explain this I would probably invest my money to try this. And I also see this site as a aggressive/deceitful marketing technique.
Arent there any highly skilled mechanics with phds in physics, exothermics, and engineering?
August 16th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Oh and chain reactions are an example of an energy source that being release that is far more powerful than the energy it take to start the chain reaction.
Nuclear bombs absolutely do not take as much energy to set off as they release and they obviously dont break the laws of physics.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:50 am
Having worked as a Honda mechanic, and having been ASE certified, then leaving and going into the computer field, I am a qualified troubleshooter.
Reality is that we have too close a tie to oil and auto manufacturers, and even if the PHD holding technician/mechanic did exist, why would he go against the $$?
Next, let’s say he’s got a moral fiber, and that he is an honest man that wants to help get the world more efficient and reduce the fossil fuel consumption. I would suggest that oil companies, auto manufacturers, and/or government agencies would do everything possible to stop the concepts, plans, and voice of the man that would threaten their $$. Further, his credit would come under attack, and people would think “SCAM” or “NUTCASE”.
Next, we have the issue of making a uniform, mass produced solution, and marketing it to consumers. The very fact that 4-cyl, 6-cyl, and 8-cyl engines all operate at differing formulas for gas/fuel mix, etc… there is no way we can have a one size fits all. In fact even all 4-cyl engines are not created equal enough to make a one size fits all 4-cyl solution. When dealing with efficiencies, I have seen larger V8 powered 4×4 Chevys get better mileage than 4-cyl Toyota 4×4s.
The reason is that it is way more to economy than simple engine efficiencies. Transmissions, gear-ratios, vibration, tire sizes, wind resistance, drive line angles, and even U-joints can have huge impact on economy, not to mention driving style.
If it were easier to make a one-size fits all solution for water4gas, it would take the world by storm (less the conspiracy theories), but I agree with the author of this blog - results will vary.
Finally, this HHO solution is not for the non-technical person. One must combine the common sense, with the understanding of what is going on under your hood, otherwise there could be disastrous results.
Not too many of the wrench turners hold PHDs in physics, exothermics, or engineering. If you find any, why the heck would they still be turning wrenches?
August 17th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
ok ive been reading these replys for a while and read the one bob left about blinding the tests. so i did just that. ive been making my own HHO genorator and did a test. i took a 5.5hp b and s motor and but 1 gallon of gas in it sarted it up and ran it wide open till it ran out of gas and stalled. then i put a pully on the motor which ran to an altnator. the altanotor powered my HHO genarator. the hho ran through a tube into the air intake of the carb. i started the motor and ran it wide open. with just gas it ran for about 23 mins. with the gas and hho it ran for 29mins. so bob there is a blind test. please parden me for not spelling right but i did do a blind test and seen results. also i have a 2005 malibu ith a 3.5v6 and before i used hho i my adv mpg was 30.9 and with my 5th desing i am getting 38.6 mpg adv now
August 19th, 2008 at 9:19 am
If it really really worked, GM, FORD, TOYOTA , and all the others would have already done this. If they could add $200 cost per vehicle and get that mileage, they would do it in a heartbeat. They have CAFE standards to meet over the next 10 years. The mileage jump I believe goes to 35mpg . Trucks and SUVs are already dying in sales, and this would provide them with a quick fix so those all those soccer moms could keep driving their buses. Having worked for Nissan…I know they will do anything to improve mileage and emissions, you can be sure about that. They are already worried about the coming CAFE standards.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Bob this is the direct result of the US public school system….you can’t fix it here…LMAO
August 25th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
The biggest drawback of this kind of technology is that auto makers have spent years making vehicles user friendly. Half the population don’t know how to open their hood and little in there is rookie servicable. Batteries are sealed, oil doesn’t need checked, nor the coolant. Even the washer fluid lasts until the owner has the oild change place do it all for him. I Haven’t seen a hydrogen system that can go more than a few hundred miles between service checks. Plenty is being done worldwide and in the U.S. on developing systems. Here is a link into youtube to look for yourself what is being done. Some foriegn companys are pursuing hydrogen very seriously and there are plenty of commercial cell builders around. Some of the work us amatuers are doing is scarey at best but some is very well done with impressive results. From this link you can click on other films and see it all from the great to the crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkmgPZgAvPU
August 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Joe stated: “If it really really worked, GM, FORD, TOYOTA , and all the others would have already done this.”
I humbly disagree with this statement. I’m sure they’re getting FAR BETTER kickbacks from Oil Gurus than the piddly $200 per car you mentioned. The technology ALREADY exists for autos to get better mileage than they currently do. But, let’s face it…money is power. Follow the $$. The Oil tycoons have a tight leash on the situation.
I thank you MRG for your informative website, and for allowing both sides of the arguments to be posted in your blogs. It gets the creative juices flowing. There will ALWAYS be “Nay-Sayers”. If any of these entries spurn someone on to make a better design, that’s what it’s all about…just make sure to send me the updated version