Gas Crisis Fuels Dubious Online Offers
Posted 29 July 2008 - 08:03 AM
I for one used the manual I purchased from water4fuel,info and did exactly as instructed.
So far I've been able to save an estimated $670 at the pump in 9 months with this "rubbish" as your so called expert says and my car (1999 Ford Crown Victoria) is doing just fine.
I really detest it when folks who do not use a product and claim to be experts pass judgment without any merit.
I'm pretty certain that people have been duped into purchasing products over the years that claim to improve health, mileage, or anything known to man, but all I know is the FACT that this manual and self made system works for me.
Posted 29 July 2008 - 10:39 AM
If these devices really could increase fuel economy while allowing the engine to run at peak efficiency, the automakers would already have them installed. Bragging rights, you know?
I'm an engineer in the automotive field and a talented mechanic. Scientifically speaking, the device cannot work as advertised.
Posted 29 July 2008 - 09:49 PM
I should point out that it is possible to combine hydrogen with oxygen to produce energy, HOWEVER, in order to get the hydrogen you need to split it from the water to begin with, which takes energy. In the end you aren't producing any "miracle" power or better fuel efficiency.
Posted 01 August 2008 - 08:03 AM
As a blogger, I look to professional journalists to do a bit of investigation before they publish a piece like this. Instead, there's no investigation (assembling pros/cons) and you use two statements out of their original context. Mike Allen called hydrogen fuel injection systems bunk months ago upon first hearing of them. Then, now after the web has put him in touch with alot of angry people successfully enjoying the benefits of this technology, he now announces he's going to TEST ONE HIMSELF. Well now, isn't that big of you Mike? To actually test something before calling it rubbish. And you Tom Price, I dont see any mention of this fact in your horribly imbalanced article. Based on how you got started in this article, I bet the AAA spokesman's quote is also out of context--there's nothing on AAA's website about this--- So if the AAA rep is refering to the long list of gadgets the EPA has tested and proven not to work, they have not tested a hydrogen fuel injection or hho generator system. I know because I've spoken to them myself and have been blogging about the topic for 2yrs. Check your facts, Tom. Start with the National Hydrogen Association of which Chrysler is a member among other large entities. They have endorsed what you are trashing. Call them up. The biggest problem with this technology isnt that it doesnt work, it's that its efficacy is called into question because the single best govt agency to validate it's use is not mandated to do so. The EPA should be testing this but they only test them when a vendor approaches them first. Instead, they should be actively testing them without waiting. That's the problem we have here. Instead, we get all this misinformation so that people like me can be tricked into signing up for PC World Newsletters just so I can post an alternative view on this thread.
WHAT A JOKE!!!!
And to the other posters who think variables not related to teh original commentator's car caused his fuel efficiency to go up, look up a dynamometer test....and then lets talk.
Posted 01 August 2008 - 08:37 AM
Should be H2O > HHO = Vendor's banker reacting with a HO HO HO.
If you think the water enhanced car works, then I have just the thing for you... A cold fusion engine, as seen in the movie "Back To The Future". Runs on old banana peels and momma's leftover meatloaf (you get an extra 5 miles per gallon if the meatloaf has turned moldy).
Sorry... Just couldn't resist!
Posted 04 August 2008 - 08:44 AM
Posted 04 August 2008 - 09:16 AM
Posted 04 August 2008 - 10:58 AM
Posted 04 August 2008 - 05:15 PM
The fact is, that's not true, or they never would have allowed current hybrid cars. Ford would love to produce a water powered car. They could charge a million bucks per car and people would buy it.
Even MythBuster tested these ways to 'improve fuel effeciency'. They really are bogus.
Posted 10 August 2008 - 04:44 PM
On second note. Does anyone remember EV1 from GM, I didn't know it existed until I've hear about http://www.whokilled...lectriccar.com/ (watch the film). GM killed the project claiming that there was no profit in electric vehicles, and they replaced the EV1 with the original hummer. Now GM is developing the VOLT, which has only about 40 miles per charge compared to a maximum of 150 miles per charge for EV1. I don't know about you, but I would prefer to buy a car that can go 150 miles instead of 40 miles per charge. The Volt costs about $30,000 (EV1 was priced at $80,000), but the Volt is still too expensive with only 40 miles per charge. Now everyone that's in a risk of loosing profits from Water for Fuel kits is trying to kill that technology too. I think the auto industry can make way more efficient cars, they just don't.
Posted 10 August 2008 - 05:24 PM
Please do not put any money into these scams. Believe me when I tell you that the engineers at the big auto plants know exactly how much energy is in a gallon of gasoline and they can tell you exactly what percentage of that energy is available to do the work required to propel the auto down the road. They know how much energy went out the tail pipe, how much went out the radiator to cool the engine, how much was lost in radiation and convection from the hot engine, etc. They know where every Btu went.
It takes as much energy to break water into hydrogen and oxygen as you can theroetically get if you recombine the hydrogen and oxygen. But the process is not 100% efficient. If you spend $1 to separate hydrogen from oxygen and then recombine the molecules, you will not get $1 out. One thing you should know however, the process to break water apart is very efficient because it uses electrical energy to do that. However, to get work out of the hydrogen and oxygen, you either have to use the fuel cell process, or burn it. Fuel cells can generate a lot of electricity if they are large enough and low price. None of them available at this time meet those two criteria.
Folks that haven't worked with hydrogen do not realize its properties. In the liquid state at atmospheric pressure, hydrogen weighs a little more than 4 lbs/cubic foot. (water is 62.4) and its temperature is about 37 degrees Rankine (37 Fahrenheit degrees above absolute zero!) If you fill a tank on a hot day with liquid hydrogen, it bleeds off all the time if you use it as a rocket fuel, or if you don't let it bleed and come to ambient temperature, then the vessel you have it stored in has to be thick walled and very strong and heavy or it will rupture.
Posted 10 August 2008 - 07:03 PM
all the energy from the gasoline is going to, such as heat and
mechanical energy. All I'm saying is that they can make engines more
efficient so that more energy is transferred into moving the car
rather than being wasted as heat. In my physics class I ran a little
experiment on efficiency of my car, if I recall correctly it was
under 20%, so imagine $3.20 of $4.00 a gallon is being wasted. You
said it yourself that “the process to break water apart is very
efficient because it uses electrical energy to do that”. This
efficiency is exactly why we can split water into hydrogen and oxygen
and then burn the hydrogen which burns cleaner and more efficiently
than gasoline. Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology is still expensive due
to the expensive material required, hydrogen fueling stations need to
be built, and transportation of hydrogen challenges. However, with
the Water for Fuel kits you are generating hydrogen on the spot, and
in small amounts so the risk of big explosion is minimized.
back to EV1 vehicles, all you had to do was install charges at
regular gasoline stations; no expensive infrastructure buildup
required, compared to hydrogen fueling stations.
Electric cars were available over 100
years ago, before gasoline engines. If we had put more research into
electric vehicles and battery improvements, we would probably have
vehicles that could go several hundreds of miles on a single charge.