Water4Petrol Water4cars -Scam or Miracle?

AdamEverAlert

thescouselander wrote: »

Yes but, as I was saying, it is a simple matter of the laws of thermo dynamics specifically - Energy cannot be created or destroyed.


The amount of energy required to produce the hydrogen will be equivelent to the energy you get back when you burn it. Since the process will not be 100% efficient the energy you get back from burning the hydrogen will not be as much as you used to make the Hydrogen in the first place.

Since the energy to make the hydrogen ultimately comes from the engine (via the electrical system) you will be using more petrol to make the hydrogen. When you burn the hydrogen you wont get as much energy out compared with the equivelent amount of petrol you used to make it.

yes and no because you charge the battery when your running anyway and if it dosent get used up it just gets wasted on over charging your battery? besides all you need your battery for in your car is to start the damn thing and half the time you dont even need it that charged if u have a manual just push start :P

Markyt

Yes, it's too expensive and the government should lower the duty on it.

AdamEverAlert wrote: »

besides all you need your battery for in your car is to start the damn thing P

Mine is a new model, it has lights. And a radio. And aircon.

thescouselander

AdamEverAlert wrote: »

yes and no because you charge the battery when your running anyway and if it dosent get used up it just gets wasted on over charging your battery? besides all you need your battery for in your car is to start the damn thing and half the time you dont even need it that charged if u have a manual just push start :P

Not true, if the battery is fully charged it will draw less current from the alternator resulting on less load on the engine - the alternator will not overcharge the battery. Any current used for the electrolyses process will come from the alternator (not the battery) and will increase load on the engine resulting in higher fuel consumption.

Also - regarding water being flammable - water is fully oxidised and wont oxidise (burn) any further no matter how much heat you use..

AdamEverAlert

but i thought the only thing you used your altenator for was to charge ur battery, provide a spark to the heads. but you run your accesories, lights,aircon, radio, dash lights, from your battery? most anyway, so u can use them when the engine is not turned on. Aircon is different in some cars i noticed you had to have the engine running to use it, that's why you feel the engin working more.... suppose like one of them contraptions.... but the aircon puts out cold air and not fuel.
energy cannot be created or destroyed, but then the other thing i was thinkin about was ...how much energy dose it take to release stored energy, and ...would it take more energy to store the energy in the first place? hmmm i suppose it changes with alot of things......energy cannot be created or destroyed but it sure dose get lost quicker than paris hilton's attention span...
I suppose an engine would be .... was going to say drill but my mind iznt big enuff to comprehend the thought,
but surely an engine running but standing still would produce less energy than a engine running at 100km/ph (friction,weight) both running at the same amount of revvs, but wich one would run out of fuel first? atleast we both know wich one would be eaysier to stop! energy is a hard thing to factor in this object with so many variables... i suppose there is only one way to test it and i will respond when i have tested it out! now i am going to have to purchase one just for reaserch purposes GOOD ONE!! but lucky for me i live in australia where aircon is not a necessity.. so i will just replace that with the contraption and see how we go,
but seriously an alternator dosent suck that much power and if it did, nobody would get the extra's when they purchased a new car.. besides if it WAS said to have more POWER after installing, and ran COOLER than previously, .......who knows only them who have done it....

kaya

"This "HHO" stuff is a load of utter tosh. It is NOT the same as Brown's gas - in fact, it doesn't even exist. A man called Ruggero Maria Santilli published an academic paper claiming to have discovered a new form of matter, this "HHO" stuff. However, in the academic equivalent of flaming a messageboard troll, his "discovery" was quickly rubbished by proper scientists who were having none of it.

"
HHO is hydrogen, hydrogen and oxygen molecules, which when you join them together is water(H2o), "browns gas" is the name given to the afformentioned combination by a now discredited looney called yul brown or something, it takes about 15a dc to create 1 liter per min of HHO by splitting water using electrolysis, this itself is nowhere near enough to run an engine on, but if you consider the amount of unburnt fuel a diesel engine throws out of the exhaust and that adding a small amount of combined gases in the correct stoichmetric ratio to create a 2000deg c explosion could effectively make use of the unburnt fuel instead of throwing it from the exhaust suddenly your engine efficiency would increase dramaticly

yaoyao98

Abinail wrote: »

I've been looking into this runyoucarwithwater.com thing. I've seen a few website all promising the same things but i'm still sceptical, however, browns gas, which is what is 'drawn' out off the water is here and there is a whole load of information available on it. It seems to me that this is possible, not willing to bet my car on it like, but the theory, or Rothman Technologies Inc theory backs it. They currently have a patent pending on this. Check out this website and let me know what you think. http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgasfuel.html
According to this website Samsung are using it for glass cutting and its definately flammable.
I admit, it all seems to good to be true and i've always been taught that if that is the case then it probably is, but i can't help wondering. Its true about the Fox26 news video and it all seems very convincing in theory.
Should email Top Gear they'd buy it, convert it and test it, or would they? I feel the main problem with any new fuel technology is the government and the amount of money they stand to lose if petrol is no longer needed in the quantities currently used.

After all that i'm still confused but welcome feedback

I had a difficult time for the past few weeks, thieves in the area stole BT phone cable and I ended up two weeks without phone line and Internet coneection. As I said in my previous posting that I will go to my local garage to consult the possibilty to convert, basically the garage guys think it's not so easy to do the job but they can do it with minimum of 6 hours work, this means around £300 labour cost and I have to acquire the necessary parts by myself. So it's not worth it to go to the garage to do it. I think the best way is emailing Top Gear's Clarkson to test it to prove once for all whether it works or not.

Wig

No, the government should further add duty on the fuel.

The method given on the website linked to in OP has not got a cat's chance in hell of working. But if you had a proper hydrogen cell (as seen on youtube) there might be a chance of making a fuel saving. To make one of these cells requires a lot of skill and knowledge that you obviously don't have. Also a garage would not be able to do it for you.

I agree that Clarkson should spend more time investgating these fuel saver claims, Instead of wasting money on blowing up caravans, making amphibiuos cars, making cars with three piece suites inside, flying/driving races between Italy and UK. They should do atleast one or 2 programs on fuel saver technology. And other programs on running on veg oil. with various different cars.

yaoyao98

Wig wrote: »

The method given on the website linked to in OP has not got a cat's chance in hell of working. But if you had a proper hydrogen cell (as seen on youtube) there might be a chance of making a fuel saving. To make one of these cells requires a lot of skill and knowledge that you obviously don't have. Also a garage would not be able to do it for you.

I agree that Clarkson should spend more time investgating these fuel saver claims, Instead of wasting money on blowing up caravans, making amphibiuos cars, making cars with three piece suites inside, flying/driving races between Italy and UK. They should do atleast one or 2 programs on fuel saver technology. And other programs on running on veg oil. with various different cars.

I am 100% with you regarding JC Top Gear program, that program has done enough damage to the environment by showing off big powerful cars with huge engine sizes. I already sent the following email to JC:

Dear Jeremy,

The cost of petrol is going up and up all the time. There is a popular posting in the Martin Lewis's http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=734631 regarding new ways to save petrol fuel by electrolysis water and make gas more effecient. Two different websites www.water4cars.co.uk and www.runyourcarwithwater.co.uk claim the technology is available, and can easily Convert Your Car to Run on Water and gas to save over 40% on fuel costs! Some of the forum posts dismiss this as scam and the idea is unworkable, other posts point out HHO (2 Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen), also called Brown's Gas or Hydroxy is a viable option. It will be great if your program do a conversion according to the manual provided on the website to see if this works or not. If the conversion proves this simple technology works, then you and your program will do a great service to millions car owners and the environment.

Thanks and kind regards

patman99

Yes, it's too expensive and the government should lower the duty on it.

The whole point is this. Hydrogen is a combustable gas (thats why there are now several hydrogen filling stations up and running in the USA. The hydrogen gas they dispense is extracted from water. The cars & lorries that use the gas DON'T use any other fuel at the same time, therefore they are burning pure hydrogen. The exhaust emissions are H2O,
So in effect, they are burning water.

Hydrogen gas is released when a small electric current is passed between 2 electrodes placed in water, at School, we produced hydrogen gas using a 1.5v battery & 2 stainless steel teaspoons..

To produce enough gas to run a car, you need to produce gas equivalent to the volume of fuel required for efficient combustion. In order to achieve this, you would need electrodes with a large surface area. Therefore using a large central electrode with an outer coil electrode in a tube of 30cm would produce sufficient gas to run a diesel engine of 2.2ltr capacity (diesels are easier to convert as you just need to fit a gas supply hose into the hose from the airfilter to the turbo (or if non-turbo, anywhere prior to the engine).

The reason that such systems are pohh-pohhed is that they pose a threat to the oil industry (who thrive on buying-up fuel-saving devices & making them 'disappear')
. Therefore it is in the interests of the oil companies to put-out scientifically proven evidence that these devices don't work.

thescouselander

patman99 wrote: »

The whole point is this. Hydrogen is a combustable gas (thats why there are now several hydrogen filling stations up and running in the USA. The hydrogen gas they dispense is extracted from water. The cars & lorries that use the gas DON'T use any other fuel at the same time, therefore they are burning pure hydrogen. The exhaust emissions are H2O,
So in effect, they are burning water.

No, you are burning Hydrogen and the product of combustion is water.

patman99 wrote: »

Hydrogen gas is released when a small electric current is passed between 2 electrodes placed in water, at School, we produced hydrogen gas using a 1.5v battery & 2 stainless steel teaspoons..

To produce enough gas to run a car, you need to produce gas equivalent to the volume of fuel required for efficient combustion. In order to achieve this, you would need electrodes with a large surface area. Therefore using a large central electrode with an outer coil electrode in a tube of 30cm would produce sufficient gas to run a diesel engine of 2.2ltr capacity (diesels are easier to convert as you just need to fit a gas supply hose into the hose from the airfilter to the turbo (or if non-turbo, anywhere prior to the engine).

Yes, and the production of this hydrogen takes energy. In fact, if your hydrogen production system was 100% efficient the energy taken to release the hydrogen would be the same as the energy given off when the hydrogen is burned.

In practice it the energy needed to release the hydrogen is a lot greater than the energy given off when it is burned.

patman99 wrote: »

The reason that such systems are pohh-pohhed is that they pose a threat to the oil industry (who thrive on buying-up fuel-saving devices & making them 'disappear')
. Therefore it is in the interests of the oil companies to put-out scientifically proven evidence that these devices don't work.

The reason why the idea is pohh-pohhed because it is more efficient to simply burn the fuel (petrol or diesel) in the engine rather than adding another process in the middle to generate hydrogen and then burn that instead.