water4gas.com

[Philip]

Anyone tried or have an opinion on it?
Philip

[TobyJug]

hey Phil,

I just had a good read through that and I hav to say it does look like a plan..
I am gonna go Makro tho and see if I can find some cheap veg oil to run till they develop this a bit closer to home..


But I do think it makes sense. Seems like a good thing

[The Kid]

I've also had a good read through it and it does seem to make sense (but then I always was gullible!).

At $97 (about£50?) it is quite dear but if one person bought the books and then resold them on to 19 other people at £2.50 a time it becomes cheap reading for the summer even if they never actually do it.

The other problem would be sourcing the parts required although (and I'm not that technical) nothing in the pictures seems to be that complicated.

Definitely worth thinking about but it would be good to hear from some of the real experts on here what they think.

Ken

[Philip]

Phone call

Just had a really nice guy called Carl from S Wales, who has just fitted a unit. In one week, he has saved approx 50% with the gas unit. I am going to get one ASAP as well.

Carl ownes two Surfs, but unfortunately uses AOL and can not get on the site to put any threads. IF ANYONE CAN HELP HIM PLEASE CALL 07773 815778 or email him on billbones11@aol.com
I know he would be very grateful.
Also anyone needing a good Surf mecanic in West Wales can contact him as he has a very good guy.
Nice talking to you Carl and thanks for phoning.
Philip

[TobyJug]

Just had a really nice guy called Carl from S Wales, who has just fitted a unit. In one week, he has saved approx 50% with the gas unit. I am going to get one ASAP as well.

Carl ownes two Surfs, but unfortunately uses AOL and can not get on the site to put any threads. IF ANYONE CAN HELP HIM PLEASE CALL 07773 815778 or email him on billbones11@aol.com
I know he would be very grateful.
Also anyone needing a good Surf mecanic in West Wales can contact him as he has a very good guy.
Nice talking to you Carl and thanks for phoning.
Philip

I'll give him a bell as there is a way around AOL

just spoken to him he is a nice guy..
will try and sort his pc out for the forum....
I am getting it done too hehe

[nocatmcm]

Dont buy of this site. that unit will not produce enough gas to save 50% fuel econ.
Ive been experimenting with hho and it would need larger and more anodes and cathodes than that to help with fuel economy.
try looking up HHO or hydrogen on youtube.
the test rig i built can just run my petrol generator. But im still learning.

cheers
Mick

[CaptainBeaky]

OK, now colour me cynical, but I can't quite see how you get a net gain in energy out of this system:


Starting material: water H2O.

From the look of things, you then add some energy (electricity), via your car battery, as charged by your car engine.

2 H2O + energy --> 2 H2 + O2 (= HHO gas)

Energy level of this product is higher than the starting material, by the amount of energy put in.

You burn the fuel in your engine:

2 H2 + O2 --> 2 H2O + energy

Now read this bit carefully:

The energy released in the burning stage is EXACTLY the same as the energy put in at the electrolysis stage - it cannot be otherwise.

So where, pray, does the extra energy come from to run your engine?

If this were a perfect closed loop, there would be no net energy output. With a less than perfect closed loop (i.e. less than 100% efficiency), you would need a net energy INPUT to keep it running.

Ergo, the observed benefits are either illusory, or are due to some other process - possibly merely by cooling down the inlet charge and improving engine efficiency.

[Apache]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. (Law of conservation of energy)

ANY conversion from one form to another results in a loss.

Those two facts may help when judging novel power systems which appear too good to be true.

Also the statement "The energy released in the burning stage is EXACTLY the same as the energy put in at the electrolysis stage - it cannot be otherwise." is bull. I would modify it to say "The energy released in the burning stage is less than the energy put in at the electrolysis stage - the laws of physics demand it cannot be otherwise

Homer - "Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics! Go to your room!"

[Vultch]

Ok ..I'll admit i know nothing and this might be a very clever scam etc...but lots on the net seem to be doing it.

Now I agree you cant get something for nothing...but hear me out

These systems appear to modify the starting product from water to HHO & O2, I am guessing this is a lot less energy than is required to produce just H and O2 (normal electrolysis).

The end result HHO stores enery and its combustion that releases it.

Are these systems just modifying water allowing its natural stored energy to be burned...

On youtube..one guy is running his 5 litre pickup on nothing but the gas..his cell is drawing under 30A 12 volts... yet the HHO produced in sufficent quanties to run the engine..

Awaiting replys and expecting to be shot down in flames.....

[Philip]

Apache

After talking with someone who knows about these things, i will try to explain in very very simple terms.
As we know most energy from fuel is lost either through heat/friction etc. By adding gas, less is lost and more is used as power. Engines running on Hydrogen run cooler. You are not actually increasing the Btu just redirecting it to produce more power.
Not sure if i even understand what i am saying, but have a kit arriving in next few days.
Being in the fuel saving and emission reduction business i am always trying things and the one thing i definately noticed was an improvement in MPG when i tried a product called Platignum Fuel Saver, which kind of worked in the same way.
Will keep everyone posted once fitted by Uncle TONY
Thanks Philip

[CaptainBeaky]

An argument on thermodynamics! What fun!

OK, this may get a bit long, for which, my apologies in advance.

Apache - I did state in my post that I was assuming a perfect closed loop. Always work out the physics in a perfect theoretical universe first, then add in the corrections for the Real World [TM].

Potential energy is stored energy - this can be in the form of physical potential, such as a weight suspended at a height in a gravity field - release the weight and it falls, converting the potential energy into kinetic energy, or chemical potential, such as in a fuel like petrol, where a chemical reaction (such as burning) releases the energy in the form of heat.

In each case, the end product has a lower potential energy than the starting situation: the weight is lower, the petrol is now CO2 and water.

Following our weight analogy, you can convert the system back again, by adding the energy back in again (raising the weight again). The energy you expend in raising the weight is the same (again, assuming 100% efficiency) as you extracted by allowing the weight to fall.

The same applies to the petrol, although this is more complicated, and, because of this, in the Real World [TM]., the losses are far larger than the weight example.

Now to our HHO example:

A volume of water, call it V, has a certain chemical potential energy: call it E.

You add energy in the form of electricity - for the purpose of calculation, we assume perfect efficiency, so no losses are incurred in transferring the energy to the water - we'll call this Ea.

The water is then converted into HHO gas, which has a higher chemical potential energy, equal to E + Ea.
Because HHO is a gas (OK, a mixture of gases), it has a much larger volume than the water, although the mass will be the same.
This volume will be 1333V at 20C and 1 bar pressure (quite possibly not relevant at this point, but may come in handy later...)

We then burn the HHO gas in our engine, and we convert our HHO back into water. Because we haven't destroyed any matter, we will have our volume V of water back again, with it's potential chemical energy of E.

Don't forget, we are assuming 100% efficiency, so no losses at all.

The energy released in the reaction is therefore Ea, which is the same as we put in in the first place. We can run this cycle as many times as we like, and in our perfect universe, we can shuttle to and fro between

2 H2O + Ea and 2 H2 + O2 without losses.


HOWEVER, if we now return to the Real World [TM]:

We have losses at each stage: in our weight example - we have to stop the weight moving. If the weight hits the ground the kinetic energy is converted to sound and heat, and is lost.

In our HHO example, some of the electrical energy that should be converting 2 H2O to 2 H2 + O2 goes to heat the water up instead.

When we burn the HHO, a lot of the energy released is wasted in friction inside the engine.

Also, to refer back to the gas volume - if the volume of the gas is restricted, the pressure will rise, as will the temperature. If our reactor vessel is half full, it will have a volume of 2 V.

The gas produced will therefore have it's volume constrained to 2 V, whereas at normal temperature and pressure (20C, 1 bar) it would be 1333 V. The pressure would therefore rise to 1333/2 bar - this would require an additional energy input, as the energy has to come from somewhere. Compressing the gas produces more heat, and in the Real World, more losses.

As to the guy running his truck on HHO alone, with his input running at 30A at 12 volts:
Given the above, even assuming his efficiency is 100%, can we believe he is pushing a truck along with that energy input?

What is the current draw on a (spit) Prius?

[Philip]

Wow

Didn't hardly understand any of that. I would have thought that mixing a more flammable gas with diesel/petol in small amounts would help to ignite more of the fuel more easily for not a huge outlay in battery power.
Will forward your reply to someone in the know.
Regards Philip

[Apache]

Peter, I'm not sure where you got the idea I was arguing against you. I fully agree!

Re. all the other devices such as platinum fuel catalysts, which promise massive savings etc. Why dont the manufacturers post up scientific FACT rather than blather about how Spitfires in the 2nd World War used them? What are they scared of?

Electric turbos, those blade things you put in your intake to give you 20BHP, various other snake oils... just post FACTS rather than claims. Tell us how they work, rather than testimonials from buyers! Of course they're gonna rave about what they've bought. They dont understand the science, but they are gonna want to justify spending their hard earned.

I think I'll no longer comment on snake oils, as people who do believe them wont offer reasoning, they just get angry because I wont just accept stuff blindly.

I still say water will not power cars because the energy you need to put in to get something useful out of it will be more than you'd get from just using the energy to power the car in the first place. if it aint, where's it coming from? Fresh air?

[Sancho]

You've lost me. Are we saying it could work or that it's nonsense?

[CaptainBeaky]

You've lost me. Are we saying it could work or that it's nonsense?

I think Apache and I are leaning towards the second option...

Apache - just being precise: it's an occupational hazard