has anyone heard of the water 4 gas system.http://www.water4gas.com i am really curious about this system it would be really nice if it actually works but i know how many scams there are out there these days and i cannot find any reviews for it on the net. the only place i can find any thing on it is on there site or at scam-free-sites.com so any information anyone could provide would be great
i bought the save gas use water and i put one on my truck. the milage i gained was great it went from 16.1 miles per gallon to 22.3 miles per gallon. that was a great increase because i have a 350 i my truck. i just put a 3 cell system in my truck 2 days but i dont no what kind of milage i am getting from it but can tell it is better than before.
Go on www.youtube.com and type in "HHO" there are a ton of people doing this in their garage. It isn't a scam, it isn't a hoax. It isn't perpetual or overunity as some claim, but just adding a small HHO generator to your vehicle may not necessarily help you. You must understand that if your automobile is fuel injected, your computer (ECU) and oxygen sensor will recognize that your auto is burning cleaner (if you are burning HHO) and will assume that is running lean (or with less gas) and will compensate by adding more gas, thus reducing your fuel milage. There is a simple circuit that you can build that will "trick" your ECU into not adjusting. Simply go to: http://zerofossilfuel.angelfire.com/ and scroll down and find the link to EFIE.
This is the sort of thing Mythbusters would debunk in a minute, or 20....
1. There is no such thing as HHO. 2. Nowhere does the 'inventor'* mention that it takes more energy to create the HHO/Brownian gas than it makes useable.
This is a hoax. This is simply elctrolysis, the breaking of water, H20 into hydrogen and oxygen. This takes x amount of energy. That energy is then used to as a sole fuel, or as an additional stream with the air intake.
These are useful if you need a small amount of hydrogen a day, like 1 liter or 1 gallon. But you run the thing with electricity to generate the hydrogen. *Stan Meyers actually was the father of this fraud.
Response: It's a phrase not a chemical equation. It's H2 and O2 split from H2O (both form naturally as diatomic elements). People call it HHO because it's the common vocabulary.
"2. Nowhere does the 'inventor'* mention that it takes more energy to create the HHO/Brownian gas than it makes useable."
Response: This comes from people who miss the whole point of HHO. I (not speaking for others) do not claim that HHO is overunity, perpetual, or zero point energy. It isn't. However, you can EASILY split hydrogen and oxygen and burn the two in the form a fuel for a car, generator, or any other combustion engine.
So, I don't get your point...Who cares how much electricity it takes to create the hydrogen? You are using water for gas instead of hydrocarbon rich gasoline. Besides, do you realize that we can create electricity with altenators that are already on your car which create electricity for your air conditioner, radio, lights, turn signals, wipers etc. Additionally, you are really far off on your figures for how much HHO you can produce. Some very simple cells produce anywhere from 1 liter to 10 liters per minute. Check out "HHO" on youtube to see people doing this in their garage.
It's a phrase not a chemical equation. It's H2 and O2 split from H2O (both form naturally as diatomic elements). People call it HHO because it's the common vocabulary.
HHO is part of the language because it confuses people into beleiving it is something other than just splitting water and recombining it. It is not the common vocabulary at any level of chemistry, because chemists aren't scam artists.
quote:
So, I don't get your point...Who cares how much electricity it takes to create the hydrogen? You are using water for gas instead of hydrocarbon rich gasoline.
Most people get there electricity from coal or natural gas, so you are using hydrocarbons. In fact, you are burning more hydrocarbons generating hydrogen this way than you would if you just burned gas. Hydrogen is not produced by elecrolysis commercially because it takes too much energy. Hydrogen is comercially produced from hydrocarbons.
There is no way to convert your car to run on water. Water is not even usefull in so called "hydro-assist" type fuels. This myth was already busted on Mythbusters.
Regardless of what it is called. Electrolysis is the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen. Are you all denying that? Are we somehow denying that water isn't made of hydrogen and oxygen??? If we aren't, then what is so hard to comprehend about lighting a flammable gas and using it in a combustion engine??? This is isn't difficult to comprehend.
If we are talking about HHO as a fuel source for cars, then here again, we aren't talking about using hydrocarbons because electricity is generated by an altenator.
Lastly, are we really using mythbusters as a resource for all things technical. I have seen some shows that were pretty ridiculous on "debunking" etc.
If we are talking about HHO as a fuel source for cars, then here again, we aren't talking about using hydrocarbons because electricity is generated by an altenator.
The alternator is powered by gasoline.
Unless you want me to beleive that this reaction is plausible:
Water + a little energy ---> Water + more energy
That is the over all chemical reaction you are suggesting if you think you can use electricity to split water then use the energy from burning the products to supply more electricity to split more water. Have fun with your perpetual motion machine.
Yea, I've seen those nutjobs review the mythbusters episode too. They are so smart, they can type stuff on the internet.
"Unless you want me to beleive that this reaction is plausible:
Water + a little energy ---> Water + more energy"
Wow, have you ever heard of a nuclear power plant? Or what about damming a river?
Besides your little "formula" doesn't take into account that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, two very highly combustible elements. Together they are very stable (because of the complete filling of their valence electron shells), but separate they are very powerful just like the elements of NaCl. Sodium and Chlorine are very reactive elements, together they make salt which you salt your food with. Don't doubt the power of individual elements although they may seem seemingly weak when combined with other elements.
i dont know about you guys who are total non-believers...but i have this thing powering up my 3 ton suv! it uses a thimble of water per year and the 9 volt battery will last about 5 years IF it is an energizer!!
since i have tossed my chemistry and physics books, i got the values from wikipedia with a search topic of 'electrolysis of water'.
in my life, i get to meet interesting people...
at one dinner party, a petroleum engineer was present...and of all things, he was in charge of the hydrogen department. talk about serendipity.
so, i asked him about hydrogen power and he said 'great stuff. wave of the future. clean end product made of water.' all the buzz words the public wants to hear.
i asked him 'how' hydrogen was produced. it 'seemed' that no one ever asked him this question because he was taken aback a little.
he said 'well, you get it from electrolysis'. (btw, almost ALL H2 is derived from natural gas which produces a lot of CO2)
i said 'really? and where does the energy to derive the electricity come from?'
he started getting upset and said 'from power plants'.
i said 'arent almost every power plant in the us driven by coal or natural gas with the rare exception of nuclear an some places with hydro?'. by this time, he was getting pretty annoyed with me but he still wanted to appear civilized in front of the other guests who were totally intrigued by my polite curious questions.
he said 'yes, that is correct'.
my last question i got to ask before he stopped talking with me and changing the subject was 'okay, let me get this straihgt. you have 100 units of coal. with the law of thermodynamics, you will get about a 35% efficiency rate. thus , you will get (in theory) 35 units of electricity. now, taking that 35 units of electricity to make hydrogen with another 35% efficiency, you are down to about...12 units of hydrogen when you started out with 100 units of coal. how does that make sense?' this question was not answered.
conspiracy theorists will always be around because they feel that they are smarter than the average bear. all is cool as long as they keep it civilized and non-violent. some of the most violent, aggressive and blindly passionate people are those who believe in their cause but yet fail to research the full depth of their cause. when in doubt, eat a salad. dont ask me why i came up with that...i just made it up!
Hi guys, I'm new here.. and I'm quite intrigued by the idea of upping the MPG on my truck. I do have a question, though...
quote:
Originally posted by jasonkrickiii:
it takes 2.06 V to split a water molecule into H2 and O2.
the reverse 'potential' energy of o2 and h2 is 1.23V.
thus, you are at about 60% efficiency and will lose 0.83V. this is chemistry at it's most basic.
I see where you're coming from, as far as creating hydrogen for solely hydrogen-based purposes, but with increasing fuel efficiency of a car (and I'm no chemist), don't most alternator/battery setups in cars waste a certain amount of energy coming out of the alternator going to the battery? and if that amount of wasted energy is enough to power an electrolysis unit, does it really matter if you're only 60% efficient? again, I've been wrong before. I'm just trying to learn!
i am not sure what you mean about the waste of energy coming from an alternator going to the battery. there will always be (at the present anyway) waste when generating electricity nothing (at the moment again) is 100% efficient.
even electrolysis of water to hydrogen has a certain theoretical limit (something like 80 to 90%) if conditions were perfect...and conditions are never perfect in the real world.
for example, most natural gas generators are 35% to 60% efficient. let's say 50% for an easy number to work with. so, taking 100 units of natural gas to get 50 units of electricity. even if you achieved near theoretical hydrolysis efficiency, you would at most get 40 to 45 units of hydrogen. then when you convert it back to electricity...you are left with about 30 (or so) units of electricity.
we need to remember that at the present...the overwhelming majority of the electricity generated in the united states is with coal or natural gas.
will this change? imo, only IF the cost of hydrogen/electrical production is less than that one of the above mention methods. i read that it takes 2 cents of natural gas to generate 1 kWh of electricity.
nuclear has its own set of problems and as far as i know, no new plants are being made. coal plants have the similar 'not in my backyard' resistance and hydro...well, you need a river big enough to drive it...and dont forget that dams are a huge ecological nightmare in its own right.
solar? we're getting there but not there...yet.
geothermal. it seems to be very location dependent. iceland being a great spot for it.
wind? again, location dependent and can be a visual eyesore (imo only). they seem to be in the some of the most picturesque places...plus, i am surprised that no one has done wind and climate impact (if any) that large banks of these wind mills may have. same goes for underwater hydro turbines that harness the waves/jet streams.
In my opinion, you are correct. If your altenator is capable of putting out 60 amps, you are probably drawing only a small fraction of that at any given time. Heater, AC unit, lights etc, put the largest draws on the altenator, but you are capable of producing more current without actually "lugging" the motor too bad.
There becomes a point at which your draw can exceed what you are producing. However, as you stated, it is possible to use the "extra" current of the altenator to produce hydrogen. Which will increase your gas mileage.
I have an internet friend who uses a 60 amp Pulse Width Modulator, an electrolysis unit, an EFIE (Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer - it basically fools your computer into not adjusting the air/fuel ratio because of readings from your 02 sensor) and he took his Geo Tracker from 24 mpg to 35 mpg! An almost 50% increase in fuel mileage.
Check him on youtube: His Channel is: daddyo44907 He has some great info on his builds and how to make a really efficient cell.
People on here can doubt electrolysis or the power of hydrogen, or they can actually experiment themselves and help the problem instead of standing in the way of those of us who are trying to figure it out.
quote:
Originally posted by wujiwa: Hi guys, I'm new here.. and I'm quite intrigued by the idea of upping the MPG on my truck. I do have a question, though...
quote:
Originally posted by jasonkrickiii:
it takes 2.06 V to split a water molecule into H2 and O2.
the reverse 'potential' energy of o2 and h2 is 1.23V.
thus, you are at about 60% efficiency and will lose 0.83V. this is chemistry at it's most basic.
I see where you're coming from, as far as creating hydrogen for solely hydrogen-based purposes, but with increasing fuel efficiency of a car (and I'm no chemist), don't most alternator/battery setups in cars waste a certain amount of energy coming out of the alternator going to the battery? and if that amount of wasted energy is enough to power an electrolysis unit, does it really matter if you're only 60% efficient? again, I've been wrong before. I'm just trying to learn!
Wow, have you ever heard of a nuclear power plant? Or what about damming a river?
Besides your little "formula" doesn't take into account that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, two very highly combustible elements.
A nuclear power plant gets it's energy from fission, not from water. the energy from daming a river comes from the sun that drives the weather system to bring precipitation, not from water. My little equation takes absolutely every bit of hydrogen and oxygen into account. By the firts law of thermodynamics, you have to put at least as much energy into separating the hydrogen and oxygen as you get out of recombining them when they burn. I guess that's why I'm the one with a PhD in chemistry, and you are relegated to posting garbage on internet websites.
I guess that's why I'm the one with a PhD in chemistry, and you are relegated to posting garbage on internet websites.
Wow, not nice at all. Sometimes the 'I'm smarter than you' just works to discourage learning. Hopefully this will cause him to learn and show that there may be a way to do something like what he talks about.
from above: Unless you want me to believe that this reaction is plausible:
Water + a little energy ---> Water + more energy
Above is a good concept, put ideas into mathematical equations. We call this physics.
if you view the simplified car system as: gas used = movement + waste
then you can see that an apparatus which can convert waste into movement would indeed increase mpg. this apparatus would not be massless since it is an add on, and this would add to the energy needed for the movement. this would not need to be a 100% efficient energy transformation (still impossible) since the waste is already produced. The efficiency of the apparatus would only need to transform enough energy into work to cover the energy cost to move the apparatus itself. This would get the apparatus moving without using more gas. You would now be moving more mass using the same gas and getting the same mpg. Any energy produced by the apparatus on top of whats needed to move the apparatus would be the gain in mpg created by the apparatus.
as for getting energy out of water, you would have to put in more energy than you plan to get out, like in the top equation.
an add on item is more difficult because you cant change the design fundamentals. change the design from the beginning and you can get crazy mpg results. the main factor why this is not done in the industry is the cost of implementing these changes outweighs the benefit.
how about strap on some solar cells to the car roof to power the electrolysis? the <100% efficiency once again wont matter since the solar was waste anyways. again it just has to move the apparatus and then add some. or look into converting heat into electricity.
the water thing (i dont know much about it) seems kinda like putting a windmill on top of your car to catch the wind to power the car.
as for getting energy out of water, you would have to put in more energy than you plan to get out, like in the top equation.
This is the whole point. In fact, due to inefficiencies in the system, you have to put in significantly more energy into elecrolysis than it is physically possible to get out of combusting the hydrogen and oxygen produced. This is fundamentally from the second law of thermodynamics which I didn't even bother to mention to this crowd.
quote:
how about strap on some solar cells to the car roof to power the electrolysis?
A much more efficient use of solar power is to take out the water and power the engine directly from the solar power. Once again, by the first and second law of thermodynamics, electrolysis of water followed by combustion of the hydrogen and oxygen produced is always an energy loss.
quote:
Wow, not nice at all. Sometimes the 'I'm smarter than you' just works to discourage learning. Hopefully this will cause him to learn and show that there may be a way to do something like what he talks about.
These people are not trying to learn at all they are trying to sell snake oil by obfuscating the fact that what they sell violates fundamental laws of physics. They actually tried to use hydroelectric power and nuclear power to prove you could get chemical energy out of water.
quote:
this is my first post so go easy on me
Hah! Science doesn't go easy or hard on anybody. If your ego is fragile, get an engineering degree.
