Water into Gas.

[Byron Kinnaman]

Well it seems it you are doubtful or you are very interested.
All that I have said here is all I will tell.
You can go on line and find a ton of information.
Again for those that do not belive it works..just keep on beliving what you want.
For those that belive it could work, well it does. You will have to do you own research just as I have done and draw your own conclusions.
They doubted electricity, the phone and going to the moon! Nothing is impossible.

There are many many things that might seem impossible or at least difficult which can be solved with technology. However changing the basic laws of physics that have been known and understood for many years is not of them. The amount of hydrogen in a quart of water is well known, the amount of energy contained in that hydrogen is well know, the amount of energy to extract that hydrogen is well known. The basic laws of physics concerning all this are well known and can't fool mother nature.

The internet is a wonderful thing. Along with lots of good information it also allows the wide spread of bogus information. The closer to getting something for free the greater the spread of said information. The 100 mpg carburetor of the 1950s and 1960s rumor has morphed into HHO and spread more widely, thanks to the internet. It isn't any wonder since there are still people falling for the Nigerian 419 Scam.

Byron

[LSChilders]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPq1exwMaUs...feature=related

[peterh]

O.K., here is an essential fact of life: You don't get something for nothing. It applies to the "free" lunch and it applies to physics and chemistry.

There are two "just add water" systems that claim to improver gas mileage, both of which were sold as gas-mileage "solutions" in the 70s.

One system claims that, by splitting H-2-O (water) into its component hydrogen and oxygen, then burning them in the car engine, you can make the car more efficient. The "you can't get something for nothing" problem here is that you'll never get as much energy from re-combining the hydrogen and oxygen when you burn it as the amount of energy you put into splitting it apart in the first place. If solving the world's energy woes was as easy as that, there wouldn't be all this talk about high oil prices or global warming. We'd simply switch over to using our perpetual motion machines that run by constantly splitting then re-combining water.

The other system suggests that, by injecting water vapor in with the air-fuel mixture before it gets burned in the engine you increase the octane -- and performance -- of the gas. This system actually has some merit, in that it does one of the most important things high-octane gas does in an engine: it slows the rate of combustion down to prevent "pinging," keeping the flame-front inside the cylinder from sweeping from the spark-plug out toward the cylinder walls and piston from moving faster than the speed of sound, reducing efficiency and damaging the engine. High octane fuel slows combustion this by using larger, slower burning gasoline molecules; water vapor injection systems do it by replacing some of the oxygen & gasoline fuel molecules in the engine cylinders with water vapor, separating them so the burning process takes longer, which stops pinging, but at the cost of reducing the amount of gasoline burned, which reduces the heat output of the process, which reduces the pressure build up in the cylinder, which means the engine doesn't have as much power.

Worse yet, much of the energy created by burning the air-fuel mixture in a water-vapor modified engine's combustion process goes into creating steam, not horsepower, so your engine's horsepower output per unit of gasoline consumed actually drops. Worse yet, super-hot steam is very corrosive, so an engine employing this technique has to be built from components that aren't affected by corrosive steam or it rusts/oxidizes. Your average car engine is not built from steam-proof components, so doing this to your car will greatly shorten engine life.

--Peter

[Byron Kinnaman]

We like to add internet links so let's try this one.

[Mr. W.]

Anyone who likens HHO systems to perpetual motion clearly doesn't understand what that term means. Just as your current car burns a fuel which must be periodically replenished, so do HHO systems.

The real question here isn't whether or not it works, because it does -- the question is does it work with a net gain or a net loss in efficiency. There are clearly a great many fraudulent systems being marketed, and the issue is to weed out the frauds from the legits, if any exist.

One of the more intriguing explanations I have heard is that while water molecules are fairly difficult to break by typical electrolysis, they simply fall apart when bombarded by relatively low levels of current at some specific frequency. I am no engineer, so don't jump all over any mistakes in my interpretation of this, but the idea is that by targeting water's flutter frequency, it takes very little energy to break it into its component hydrogen and oxygen.

This seems similar to me to what happened with the

Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse.

The bridge was designed to carry vast loads, and to withstand gale-force winds, but a comparatively gentle wind hit the flutter frequency, and it collapsed. Again, I haven't completely bought into the idea of water fuel, but I'm not so closed minded as to want to blind myself to the success of others, just because it violates science as we think we know it.

By the way -- I drive a 1995 Honda Civic VX. It was EPA rated at well over 50mpg on the highway, and I easily get 55-56mpg at interstate speeds, running the A/C. Used to have a 1995 Metro LSI, too, and got a steady 43mpg with that, but sadly, it rusted away.

[Byron Kinnaman]

"A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, giving the user unlimited energy. It thus violates the law of conservation of energy. Over-unity devices, that is, devices with a thermodynamic efficiency greater than 1.0 (unity, or 100%), are perpetual motion machines of this kind."

Sounds like HHO to me.

Byron

[Mr. W.]

I would have to disagree -- by the definition you quoted, the machine produces more energy than it consumes, thereby it can run forever on its own output. Therefore, it never needs to be refueled beyond the initial start-up. HHO machines have never, to my knowledge, claimed anything of the sort. They run on water, or a mixture of gasoline and water, and must be refueled. This is clearly not perpetual motion, or even anything similar.

Again, I am not trying to defend a technology that has yet to be proven to me, but I don't think we should cloud this issue with obfuscating terminologies.

Some years ago, I decided to try one of those rare-earth fuel-line magnets, which claimed some pretty significant gas mileage increases. I figured, for ten bucks, I don't have to save much gas to pay for it, and if it doesn't work, I'm not out much. I put one on my Jimmy, and immediately saw a two mpg improvement in daily driving. I had about 60,000 miles of history to that point, averaging 17mpg, and a maximum of 23 mpg on the highway. With the magnet, it averages 19mpg, with a maximum of 26 on the highway. No, I don't have a dynamometer printout, but I have 45,000 miles of history with the magnet, and the results are consistent, and there were no other known changes introduced to the vehicle to explain it.

Flush with success, I tried one of the magnets on my Metro. Didn't make any difference. So, am I a believer? Well, yes and no...

[Byron Kinnaman]

I would have to disagree -- by the definition you quoted, the machine produces more energy than it consumes, thereby it can run forever on its own output. Therefore, it never needs to be refueled beyond the initial start-up. HHO machines have never, to my knowledge, claimed anything of the sort. They run on water, or a mixture of gasoline and water, and must be refueled. This is clearly not perpetual motion, or even anything similar.

Read again the definition as I quoted. Let me highlight [b]A perpetual motion machine of the first kind produces strictly more energy than it uses, giving the user unlimited energy. There's nothing said about how or source of energy only producing more than used.

Energy is used to extract hydrogen from water. The hydrogen is burned in the engine to produce energy. Some of that energy is used to extract hydrogen and around and around we go. If there's not more energy in the hydrogen extracted than in energy used to extract the hydrogen then there's a loss. If there's more energy in the hydrogen extracted than in energy used to extract the hydrogen then that's a perpetual motion machine.

[CD Smith]

[quote]An analysis that might help everyone understand the problem. Who knew that it would take more than 1 kw of power to generate H2 equivalent to just 1% of the fuel I use towing.


Attachment 14568


I am on Byron's side on this one. Look at my post. If it takes a KW of electricity to replace 1% of the fuel you use, where do you think it comes from? Does it appear magicaly.

Someone claimed that they got a 17.5% increase in MPG. That would take about 20 KW of energy. Most car/truck alternators are capable of 12 Volts X 30 Amps = 0.360 KW.