Water4Petrol Water4cars -Scam or Miracle?

yaoyao98

in2deep wrote: »

No doubt in years to come when some bright spark comes up with a electrolysis machine small enough but powerful enough to do the job we will have cars like that.

NB one of the first guys to run a car on 'home' modified water (hydrogen) was mysteriously killed.

according to water4gas.co.uk website..., number of guys have already run a car on home modified water (hydrogen) cars and they are still not so meticulously alive.

patman99

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

Since my last post regarding the 'water4fuel' debate, I have received an email from a firm selling the kit (either 'DIY' or pre-built), their claims seem slightly truer than those of the original designer.
According to the email, the system didn't produce enough hydrogen to run his wifes Toyota (which required 8Ltr/min to run), however, he did find that it worked well as a 'combination' system mixing the gas with the petrol. This is quite feasable, as the amount of petrol required would reduce in volume by the amount of gas produced. Quite how you would control the flow of petrol to create the perfect mix wasn't mentioned, but I guess you could make some kind of sensor system to actually control it.

Anyway, there is only one way to settle the debate once and for all. I propose putting together a small team to construct a hydrogen generator and test it on a real engine. The only thing is, it would have to be based in Essex & other forum members would have to invest the sum of £1 each in order to buy the materials. Everything would be filmed & the final film would be distributed to the TV media.

superscaper

patman99 wrote: »

Since my last post regarding the 'water4fuel' debate, I have received an email from a firm selling the kit (either 'DIY' or pre-built), their claims seem slightly truer than those of the original designer.
According to the email, the system didn't produce enough hydrogen to run his wifes Toyota (which required 8Ltr/min to run), however, he did find that it worked well as a 'combination' system mixing the gas with the petrol. This is quite feasable, as the amount of petrol required would reduce in volume by the amount of gas produced. Quite how you would control the flow of petrol to create the perfect mix wasn't mentioned, but I guess you could make some kind of sensor system to actually control it.

Anyway, there is only one way to settle the debate once and for all. I propose putting together a small team to construct a hydrogen generator and test it on a real engine. The only thing is, it would have to be based in Essex & other forum members would have to invest the sum of £1 each in order to buy the materials. Everything would be filmed & the final film would be distributed to the TV media.

Considering your recent gaff over how to calculate percentages in your kwik fit threads I think everyone should be wary of any results you produced (not to mention your finances). Someone who thinks you simply add percentages in the way you had would not be someone I'd rely upon to produce trustworthy results or calculate actual efficiencies.

redux

patman99 wrote: »

Anyway, there is only one way to settle the debate once and for all. I propose putting together a small team to construct a hydrogen generator and test it on a real engine. The only thing is, it would have to be based in Essex & other forum members would have to invest the sum of £1 each in order to buy the materials. Everything would be filmed & the final film would be distributed to the TV media.

Nigeria might be a more suitable venue for your experiment

The only way to settle the debate once and for all is to say that it is a con.

kaya

here's the truth about them , i have spent 3 years designing and selling the same object and the results are inconclusive to say the very least.
The reason peeps are so confused is quite easy to explain, Think of a 2000 cc engine, every revolution of the engine(about 1500 per minuite at tickover) it displaces 2000cc of air, my best generator only produced 1500cc of gas every minuite, so you would need a massive generator to produce enough gas to run an engine, and massive amounts of electricity to power the generator, as its been pointed out it wont produce enough gas to run a toyota.
Electolosys of water produces oxygen and hydrogen together, which is a very explosive mix, i sold 45 units which were retailed by my distributor for , wait for it, £2600each, i had contact with two users directly who reported a 17.5% and 10% fuel saving whilst all the other users reported between 10 and 25% indirectly through the wholesaler, im not trying to tell anybody anything here, just reporting the facts as they were conveyed to me, all units were fitted to diesel engines in HGV'S and coaches, dont think of the generated gas as running the vehicle but merely supplimenting the fuel supply and scavenging(burning) all the unused fuel that would normally be pushed out of the exhaust.
I dont have a website to point anyone to and have no wish to sell anything to anyone here, my units weighed iin at nearly 20 kilo's when full and are all medical grade stainless steel, the cheapo "jam jar" units you see will 100% not work, people who say they are are fibbing, the process of electrolosis creates a lot of heat, the small jam jar units will overheat and boil very quickly and act as a water injection system, they are inneficient and wont last for long, i have purchase orders to prove the sales for any disbelievers and a letter from a university based company stating they have seen a 17.5% fuel saving from my unit, the same company recently won a £20,000 cash prize for there "innovative idea" which nobody has seen yet and is described as working in the same way as mine, giving the same result, but they wont show anybody a picture of theres!!!!
If somebody on here works at milbrook or another suitable testing center and has something more accurate than the cars "onboard trip computer" to test fuel consumtion with then i would consider allowing the use of one of my units free for testing purposes, you would need to demonstrate to me you can test it accurately and professionaly and sign a non disclosure agreement, so there you go, if anybody on here who claims the units dont work has the facilities to test fuel consumption accuratley enough to justify there claims then please step up-im very serious and have a unit here, boxed and assembled and waiting to be tested by you, no e-bay rubbish, no jam jars, digital in cab display, assistance in fitting, only 3 wires to connect to your vehicle and no other modifications required, large diesel engine would be best as my units are designed for external fitting due to cooling constraints, im obviously expecting an honest reply as to its uses
So there is the challenge, no financial outlay needed at all, im very interested in what the results would be as well as i have never tested for fuel savings and spent all my time designing an efficient method of gas production, I sometimes visit here every few days so please PM if my reply takes a while

patman99

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

Just out of interest, if a 2000cc engine gets through 2000cc of air per revolution, how many cc's of fuel (diesel or petrol) would be contained in that mixture?.

Several people have poo-pooed the idea of using water in a combustion engine due to the potential for excessive corrossion, however, several years ago, Tomorrows World featured a fleet of buses in Sheffield (I think), which had a direct water injection system for injecting water in with the diesel fuel. The idea being that the water would settle on the piston head & act as a 'protective shield', thus allowing the compression ratio to be upped without the extra heat generated damaging the pistons.
They reckoned to get 25% more MPG, lower emisions & better acceleration. Deisel engines have improved since then with the introduction of turbos & direct fuel injection.
Interestingly, VW added the system to their petrol Polo, but discontinued it after if proved unpopular due to having to not only fill-up with fuel, but having to remember to fill-up the water tank as well.

Oh, & superscraper, fyi, a man who makes no mistakes does nothing.

patman99

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

Have just emailed Quentin Willson to ask him if these things work. Will post his reply here when I get it. Maybe that will end the argument once and for all.

superscaper

patman99 wrote: »

Have just emailed Quentin Willson to ask him if these things work. Will post his reply here when I get it. Maybe that will end the argument once and for all.

Ahh yes the well known engineer and scientist.....;)

redux

patman99 wrote: »

Have just emailed Quentin Willson to ask him if these things work. Will post his reply here when I get it. Maybe that will end the argument once and for all.

Why must you insist that there is an argument to be settled? And why must you find one authoritative souce while ignoring all other information?

Energy cannot be spontaneously created, this is not a nuclear source, and electrolysing to obtain the gas uses more energy than you get back by burning it again.

It is a con

The water injection you're on about is different, as it is only water, it is not burning, and it's used for a different reason

patman99

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

If the system produces enough gas to replace 10% of the fuel (as suggested by another poster), and the unit costs £200 to build and install, it would take me 2 years & 4 months to recuperate the costs. The chance that I would still have my car in 2 years time are remote.
If I fill my car with BP Ultimate ( which costs about 10p/ltr more than standard diesel), I can get an extra 18% on my mpg. Therefore my conclusion is, use BP Ultimate instead of a hydrostar (I found through experiance that Shells' 'v-power' diesel only gives an extra 3 % more mpg.).

The one area where hydrostar type technology would have a use is in the production of hydrogen gas to power emergency generators as the power source for the hydrogen converter could be something simple like a solar panel or wind turbine. this would easily produce enough hydrogen to fill a storage tank over the period that the generator wasn't required.