[Pony Exp.305]

Very Interesting>>>
http://water4gas.com/2books.htm
or
http://runyourcarwithwater.com/

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) ???

[Pony Exp.305]

Found at LS1Tech..
http://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t...er+your+run+car

Interesting....
Yeah it is NOT B*llSh*T..
I think about try on my 1991 CamaroRS with 134K miles on one day...

Link>>>http://savefuel.ca/oxy-hydrogen/

This post has been edited by 27Cam02: May 30 2008, 06:11 PM

[JaredT]

Very Interesting>>>
http://water4gas.com/2books.htm
or
http://runyourcarwithwater.com/

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/bs.gif) ???

Quite interesting, even says it works on diesels....

[00 Trans Ram]

I haven't looked for the technical rebuttal, but don't you think that if this actually worked, Mr. Al "Global Warming" Gore would have said something? If it worked, you've got to imagine that CNN, MSNBC, GreenPeace, GreenHippies or some other liberal place would have touted it by now.

[JustinID]

He's talking about "steam cleaning" the engine from the inside... bull shit. You want to see what water will do in your engine, just look at any cracked block or blown seal where you get coolant into the cylinders. It's a sham.

[trackbird]

I'm not defending this since it smells of "get rich quick" (for someone, though I've not read the papers). But water injection is done on various engines and has been for years. Water expands at a rate of 1,700:1 (as I remember) when it converts to steam, so adding a bit that will "flash evaporate" during combustion can add a bit of power, it acts like having higher octane fuel (to reduce detonation), etc.

More here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

[rpoz-29]

I haven't seen this since the oil embargo of the 70's. My dad was a Chevy parts manager, and I remember mentioning it to him. He said he had seen them in the 40's, and had one in the attic of the parts dept. I remember it had a huge glass jar and a nozzle of some sort. Funny how things come back around. I wonder if it would cause your car's computer to go nuts.

This post has been edited by rpoz-29: May 31 2008, 12:49 AM

[35th_Anniversary...]

sounds scary to me.. HHO gas? This is different from H2O how?? Still 2 H atoms for 1 O atom.... The H atoms can bond together, but the O atom will need to bond with another O atom since H2 is a stable composition. If they are just using electrolysis to make H2 and O2 then it isn't anything revolutionary, I'm just scared about having O2 aboard the car.... O2 is a very dangerous substance (remember air is 72% Nitrogen). The O2 is the reason why the metal ball in the youtube video melts... O2 fires will consume metal.... (metal becomes the fuel). So looks to me that the H2 is the ignition fuel for the fire, I'm just not sure how the O2 doesn't eat your whole entire engine.

[gopanoz]

There was a segment on local fox channel about this. They also had a water powered torch/welder. It was frikin awsum! Super hot flame! showed cuttin titanium and melting a baseball sized stainless steel ball bearing in couple of minutes and then doing some fine welding with it. Had a 180000 mile escort with hho and gets way better mileage also.

[RVachon]

I wonder if it also gives detailed description how to make a flux capacitor?

[gopanoz]

that has already been done and is free online

http://www.geek24.com/g/how-to-build-your-own-flux-capacitor



(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[firechkn]

I have the plans to build your own kit. It doesn't look hard to replicate, sourcing the parts is the biggest challenge.

From my reading the basic kit (ELETROLYZER) will work well for older cars without OBD II, otherwise you will need to tune your car or get a MAP sensor enhancer, etc.

Once I get my hands on all the parts for the basic kit, I will try it on my OBD I '95 TA. If anyone wants the plans and literature I could email the 10 meg zip file to you.

BTW, years ago I bought a similar kit, but it used Platinum injection. I was able to run mid grade gas and the engine suffer no ill effects or power lost. The refill bottles got costly so I ditched the kit.

[00 Trans Ram]

Why go to all that trouble? For a couple hundred dollars, just buy the O2 units that elderly put into their cars to generate breathing oxygen. it generates a LOT more, and doesn't need water. It also doesn't put some cheap jar in the engine or require weird wiring - it plugs into the cig lighter. It's got a warranty, and is certified for use in the car.

[00 SS]

Here's the problem I see with all of these systems. Energy balance. You can't create energy. So, even if we assume the entire process is 100% efficient, you get no net gains. In reality, it's not anywhere near 100% efficient. Where does the power to create the hydrogen and oxygen come from? The alternator maybe. If so, the engine has to drive it using HP. There are losses in that process. The electricity first makes heat in the water before separating it into hydrogen and oxygen, more loss. The engine combustion efficiency is maybe 30%, more loss. Do they really want us to believe that the energy out of burning the resulting hydrogen and oxygen is greater than the engery it took to create it? If it is, we just solved the worlds energy problems.

I believe this is the reason the manufacturers do not include this type of system on factory vehicles. Like was stated above, if it were this simple, it would have been done already and be in mainstream use.

[firechkn]

The alternator is spinning away anyways making energy and storing it in the battery. The system supposedly uses very little energy, someone mentioned as much as one headlight. Are you saying you get worst mileage during the night when all your headlights are on and afraid of burning out your alternator in the process?

Lets say the system gives you a 20% increase in mileage like some have claimed, I can't see a little drain on the alternator being a problem. IMHO.

[trackbird]

The alternator is spinning away anyways making energy and storing it in the battery.

It's spinning, and it's charging. The voltage regulator adjusts it to charge in relation to load. Meaning, it's not sitting there running at full power all the time the engine is running. More load = more hp drain. It may not be a ton, but it's the reality of the charging system.

[00 SS]

The alternator is spinning away anyways making energy and storing it in the battery.

It's spinning, and it's charging. The voltage regulator adjusts it to charge in relation to load. Meaning, it's not sitting there running at full power all the time the engine is running. More load = more hp drain. It may not be a ton, but it's the reality of the charging system.

Exactly. And yes, if you drive a full tank at night and a full tank in the day (without day time running lights) over the exact same roads, temperatures, wind speeds, vehicle speeds etc, you will get better gas mileage in the day time. A 130 amp alternator puts out about 2 hp worth of electricity at full load, the input input load is about 20% higher or about 2.5 hp. On a low HP small car, this could actually be a noticable difference. On a larger, higher hp vehicle, this is such a small percentage of available power, you don't notice. If you can get a 20+% increase in mpg from a 2.5 hp drain then it's definately a great thing. I don't see it.

[firechkn]

I guess the only way to tell for sure is to try it and log it. Once I get the parts I'll be more than happy to test it out. First I need to source some 316L stainless steel lines...

[Herron Performan...]

I have been reading alot about this and it's very interesting, more interesting is how they are manipulating the sensors to the PCM....that is a bit scary at times.....and the guys have no clue how it alll works together....

[souseless]

I've been looking at this and in fact had come to this site today to start a thread about this topic. I'm very interested in this. I have a crap pile of a van that would be a perfect test bed. I was especially interested in the affects on the computerized engine and how the sensors were able to compensate for the change in fuel type and mix. Anyways please continue to give updates and I'm hoping that someone else might have a testimonial for this. Is the zip file 10 meg in the zipped file or after it is opened?

[z28tt]

The systems disassociate water into Brown's gas?

Wikipedia to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_gas#Brown.27s_gas

When ignited, the gas mixture converts to water vapor and releases energy, which sustains the reaction: 241.8 kJ (235 BTU) of energy (LHV) for every mole of H2 burned.

The idea is to split water (2*H2O = 2 H2 + 02, about 80-90% efficient according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_...ter#Efficiency) through electrolysis and then recombine it again?!! How can that possibly generate energy, when nothing is ever 100% efficient.

If a gallon of gas has 112,000 BTU, and your fuel rate at cruise is 15mpg @ 60 mph, that's 4 gallons per hour, or 448 kBTU's. To increase the mileage by 10%, you need to generate 45 kBTU's of h2 per hour, or 192 moles (or grams, if a mole equals a gram) per hour. Adding 96 moles of 02 at 32 grams/mole, gives you 3072 grams of 02.
192+3072=3264 kg (3.264 Liters) of water/hr needed to electolyze to make enough h2 needed to supplement 10% of the gasoline

If you need 4 electrons to split a water atom into 2 h2's and one o2, need 96 moles of water/hr, then you need 384 moles of electrons/hr, or 2.3E26 electrons. Since it's 1.6E-19 electrons per coulomb, you need 3.68E7 coulombs/hr.

An Amp-Hour is 3600 coulombs, so you'll need 10,214 AH to feed the electrolysis reaction.

A volt is 1 joule per coulomb. With a 12.6 volt battery, you'll need 3.68E7 coulombs/hr * 12.6 Joules/coulomb = 4.63E8 Joules/hr
Since a watt is 1 joule/sec, that works out to be 128,700 Watts.

That's a pretty damn big power draw on the alternator!

Much better to just accept the 35% loss in burning gasoline, than add another 2 steps with their inefficiencies

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car

I supposed I could have saved a bit of time calc'ing formulas if I just converted the 45,000 BTU's needed for a 10% gain in mileage * 1055 into Joules and divided by 3600 into Watt/hr (which is 13,129 Watts/hr, so I'm off by a factor of ten with the crazy calcs above, which may either be a mistake, or somehow show the inefficiency if it's correct). (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Regardless, 13,000 Watts is a pretty big load too...

Maybe if you used solar cells to charge a battery for the water electrolysis! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by z28tt: Jun 11 2008, 04:31 PM

[JustinID]

Thank you Mike and Andris for adding some sanity to this. It all boils down to conservation of energy (an irrefutable law of physics). It's the idea that nothing comes for free. If you're adding energy to a system, that energy has to come from somewhere. That can be from solar power (directly or indirectly), biological processes (like creating methane from waste), mechanical storage (winding up a spring), electro-chemical conversions (such as using electricity to create hydrogen from water). To get a certain amount of power from a source, at least that much power has to have been placed into that source to begin with. Andris showed this with his calculations: To get a gain from electrically produced hydrogen, you have to put that power into the system first. In this case, that power comes from the alternator. The alternator has to work at least as hard as the engine would work (and in actuality much harder) to make that energy available through the hydrogen.

This scam is similar to that jackass that is selling his "plans" that will inject plasma into your engine, creating the plasma with his 500% efficient generator. Think about that... think about what a plasma torch does to metal. Now think about a 500% efficient device. That means you could plug it into your wall, it would take 100 watts of power and turn it into 500 watts of power... magically. The problem is that they use just enough scientific jargon to confuse the average layperson, but don't actually show anything scientific. It use to be that people could sell "snake oil" out of the back of a covered wagon because people were very ignorant. Now people are more educated, but the scam is exactly the same, you just have to have a more sophisticated sales pitch.

This post has been edited by JustinID: Jun 11 2008, 05:49 PM

[Alien]

But the media would NEVER lie!

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?...03-b0dd76f2cebc

Channel 5, open mouth, insert foot.

[Rob Hood]

I have a friend who has installed this contraption on his 2005 (I think) Dodge four-door 2WD pickup with the 4.7 V8 which is stock save for this system. He has so far seen a huge increase in highway mpg, from 14 to 20. I too have been very skeptical of this setup, but am now considering installing it on my HD. (I am only CONSIDERING it right now). My friend currently is using one water jar, but is increasing to a six-pack soon.

One of the first things he noticed after getting the system installed and working with the engine was how much quieter and smoother the engine was. I mention that because he's not a motorhead by hobby but is an electrician by trade. I couldn't tell the difference in sound, but it's his truck and I've never driven it. There is a box that allows you to switch the timing from "city" and "highway," which allows more timing when in the city mode. The city mode does give you more low-end power to help acceleration, but is not needed when on the highway.

I'm waiting on his more long-term results, just to see how the truck holds up overall. He does not tow with his truck but does haul gear and people fairly regularly, with work sites ranging from Ft Huachuca to Yuma (lots of highway driving). And all this has been going on during summer, with temps easily in the 100s and sometimes the 110s.

[SLICK1851]

People use water injection for turbo setups, doesnt to far fetched to me

[CMC#5]

Guys, guys...you're looking at this all wrong! The reality is if this actually worked, the oil companies would've buried the inventors under fifty feet of concrete and collected and burned all of the documentation! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[bsim]

Or, they'd be drilling for water by now.

[Rob Hood]

Environmentalists won't let them drill offshore...

[Mojave]

People use water injection for turbo setups, doesnt to far fetched to me

Whoa there. Turbo guys inject straight water into the intake stream to reduce heat. It takes a lot of energy to make steam from water, and that is heat coming out of the intake air. There is no electrolysis to break the water apart.

The setup talked about here is completely different, and most importantly, does not follow the law of conservation of energy.

YMMV.

[z28tt]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

[ReEntryRacer]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

As a matter of fact, piston engines do not make power directly from heat. They make torque from the pressure of expanding gases in the combustion chamber pushing on the crown of the pistons. Injecting water into that combustion process in the correct volume causes a tremendously more efficient increase in that pressure, resulting in as much as 30% more torque. This is done while using less fuel (de-richen from 12.5:1 best power A/F to 14.7:1 best heat A/F) during maximum power production. The temperature is less (of course) but as I said, heat doesn't have any real relationship to torque. The engine runs smoother, cooler, cleaner, and gets at least 25% more power. All this with a bottle of pure water, and a simple low pressure injection pump. Mine was a Nissan windshield washer pump. A 1-ton dually 350 SBC with a 10 ft. camper towing a boat up the 10-mile steep grade into the interior of British Columbia on Highway 5 proved the concept. Drilled two holes in the air cleaner lid for small jets (drilled .050" holes in 3/16ths bolts) positioned over the secondary barrels. A momentary contact switch under the gas pedal, and an arming switch to get it all working. Just don't forget to add a little alcohol to the bottle in the winter.

The idea is not at all new. I just copied the basic system used in the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 CB16 18 cylinder aircraft engine used in the DC-6 four-engined airliners of the late '40s. They got an EXTRA 500 BHP for take-off on each engine (that's a total of 2000 BHP, equal to a 5th engine!) when using water injection. The tanks and pumps were quite small, with 6 gallons providing enough for about 40 minutes of extra power. They used 25% LESS fuel during the take-off and climb than when running "dry".
Jets also used the concept to lower turbine inlet temperatures while conserving fuel and increasing power. Both piston and turbine helicopters used it too, for extreme high altitude hover rescues, etc.

Nothing is really new. We just forget. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[SLICK1851]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

As a matter of fact, piston engines do not make power directly from heat. They make torque from the pressure of expanding gases in the combustion chamber pushing on the crown of the pistons. Injecting water into that combustion process in the correct volume causes a tremendously more efficient increase in that pressure, resulting in as much as 30% more torque. This is done while using less fuel (de-richen from 12.5:1 best power A/F to 14.7:1 best heat A/F) during maximum power production. The temperature is less (of course) but as I said, heat doesn't have any real relationship to torque. The engine runs smoother, cooler, cleaner, and gets at least 25% more power. All this with a bottle of pure water, and a simple low pressure injection pump. Mine was a Nissan windshield washer pump. A 1-ton dually 350 SBC with a 10 ft. camper towing a boat up the 10-mile steep grade into the interior of British Columbia on Highway 5 proved the concept. Drilled two holes in the air cleaner lid for small jets (drilled .050" holes in 3/16ths bolts) positioned over the secondary barrels. A momentary contact switch under the gas pedal, and an arming switch to get it all working. Just don't forget to add a little alcohol to the bottle in the winter.

The idea is not at all new. I just copied the basic system used in the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 CB16 18 cylinder aircraft engine used in the DC-6 four-engined airliners of the late '40s. They got an EXTRA 500 BHP for take-off on each engine (that's a total of 2000 BHP, equal to a 5th engine!) when using water injection. The tanks and pumps were quite small, with 6 gallons providing enough for about 40 minutes of extra power. They used 25% LESS fuel during the take-off and climb than when running "dry".
Jets also used the concept to lower turbine inlet temperatures while conserving fuel and increasing power. Both piston and turbine helicopters used it too, for extreme high altitude hover rescues, etc.

Nothing is really new. We just forget. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Does this thing work then? Or the idea of it?

[Mojave]

The more heat you take out of the burn, the lower your cylinder pressure, and the less power you make*.

(*if you're not mojorly timing limited)

A.

As a matter of fact, piston engines do not make power directly from heat. They make torque from the pressure of expanding gases in the combustion chamber pushing on the crown of the pistons. Injecting water into that combustion process in the correct volume causes a tremendously more efficient increase in that pressure, resulting in as much as 30% more torque. This is done while using less fuel (de-richen from 12.5:1 best power A/F to 14.7:1 best heat A/F) during maximum power production. The temperature is less (of course) but as I said, heat doesn't have any real relationship to torque. The engine runs smoother, cooler, cleaner, and gets at least 25% more power. All this with a bottle of pure water, and a simple low pressure injection pump. Mine was a Nissan windshield washer pump. A 1-ton dually 350 SBC with a 10 ft. camper towing a boat up the 10-mile steep grade into the interior of British Columbia on Highway 5 proved the concept. Drilled two holes in the air cleaner lid for small jets (drilled .050" holes in 3/16ths bolts) positioned over the secondary barrels. A momentary contact switch under the gas pedal, and an arming switch to get it all working. Just don't forget to add a little alcohol to the bottle in the winter.

The idea is not at all new. I just copied the basic system used in the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 CB16 18 cylinder aircraft engine used in the DC-6 four-engined airliners of the late '40s. They got an EXTRA 500 BHP for take-off on each engine (that's a total of 2000 BHP, equal to a 5th engine!) when using water injection. The tanks and pumps were quite small, with 6 gallons providing enough for about 40 minutes of extra power. They used 25% LESS fuel during the take-off and climb than when running "dry".
Jets also used the concept to lower turbine inlet temperatures while conserving fuel and increasing power. Both piston and turbine helicopters used it too, for extreme high altitude hover rescues, etc.

Nothing is really new. We just forget. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Does this thing work then? Or the idea of it?

What we are discussing here (straight water injection) and what they are selling (electrolysis to get pure hydrogen to inject) are two different things. Yes, adding hydrogen to the intake charge helps. No, you can't get nearly enough from a small bottle of water, and it takes MORE power to make the hydrogen than you gain from burning it.