Equal Chance: Mileage Breakthrough OR Giant Scam
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 63
From: Ohio
great to see this back on track, though unfortunately I'll be out of the country in the upcoming few weeks so I won't get to see what more will post related to all this.
My long term plan is (as I get situated with my fiancee in our new home) is that we will eventually be purchasing a secondary, used car to test out this on and hopefully all in due time this technology will find it's niche in credibility and functionality.
As another member pointed out, the Fit is currently our only mode of transport along with our bicycles, so tampering too much with it in terms of experimental technology is less than desirable.
On a side note, I do plan on going the forced induction route because it's been known to increase MPGs, so long as the driver stays in check. That's not to say I won't get on it every once in a while, but I'm a mature adult and I want to turbocharge the fit because of the benefits and not to race. (and if anyone out there who has done this, please PM me with tips and advice - I'm waiting for the Greddy kit, since it doesn't require fog light removal, and I want to maintain 100% honda functionality
)
I'd be curious to see, since the principle idea behind these water to fuel kits is using separated H and O molecules in order to burn the fuel more completely and efficiently if forced induction could be complemented by it as well (again, in the future)
Looking forward to catching up on my reading when I return from vacation...
My long term plan is (as I get situated with my fiancee in our new home) is that we will eventually be purchasing a secondary, used car to test out this on and hopefully all in due time this technology will find it's niche in credibility and functionality.
As another member pointed out, the Fit is currently our only mode of transport along with our bicycles, so tampering too much with it in terms of experimental technology is less than desirable.
On a side note, I do plan on going the forced induction route because it's been known to increase MPGs, so long as the driver stays in check. That's not to say I won't get on it every once in a while, but I'm a mature adult and I want to turbocharge the fit because of the benefits and not to race. (and if anyone out there who has done this, please PM me with tips and advice - I'm waiting for the Greddy kit, since it doesn't require fog light removal, and I want to maintain 100% honda functionality
)I'd be curious to see, since the principle idea behind these water to fuel kits is using separated H and O molecules in order to burn the fuel more completely and efficiently if forced induction could be complemented by it as well (again, in the future)
Looking forward to catching up on my reading when I return from vacation...
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 124
From: Maryland
HydroRunner
I saw an article on Gizmag about a car using the HydroRunner and decided to check it out. They have results from a third-party on a test vehicle that showed fuel efficiency improvements of 84%.
But get this, a system for a 4,6 or 8 cylinder gas vehicle is $3,500. And, they suggest that 1 liter of water should last for 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Their system is not producing a ton of HOH but it is having a marked impact on fuel efficiency.
Check it out and let me know what you think.
But get this, a system for a 4,6 or 8 cylinder gas vehicle is $3,500. And, they suggest that 1 liter of water should last for 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Their system is not producing a ton of HOH but it is having a marked impact on fuel efficiency.
Check it out and let me know what you think.
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 53
From: Ottawa, KS
Okay, well, whatever your point is, it's nice that it brings you so much enjoyment.
Back to the topic to keep mod TOOL happy, with all the yelling about how obvious the scam is here, and how it can't work-won't work-is impossible, etc. etc., no one has argued with any scientific fact to prove how it couldn't work. It it did work, they wouldn't need the scam sales tactics with a money-back guarantee that is actually a trap. If packaged properly, it could work.
Just like the best science fiction & horror books and movies, there is enough reality to set the stage, but they need the CGI special effects to get you involved. This site couldn't afford CGI- just a bearded guy smiling as he breathes the magic engine exhaust.
Back to the topic to keep mod TOOL happy, with all the yelling about how obvious the scam is here, and how it can't work-won't work-is impossible, etc. etc., no one has argued with any scientific fact to prove how it couldn't work. It it did work, they wouldn't need the scam sales tactics with a money-back guarantee that is actually a trap. If packaged properly, it could work.
Just like the best science fiction & horror books and movies, there is enough reality to set the stage, but they need the CGI special effects to get you involved. This site couldn't afford CGI- just a bearded guy smiling as he breathes the magic engine exhaust.
The "quotation" will clinch the SCAM identification. As with all of the crooked info-mercials, there is a lot of fact in this web site. The facts are easy to combine with bs in the marketing of junk. I want to see what size of fortune is being asked for with this hardware.
However, this thread attracted a lot of bs from the uneducated, as I suspected that it would. It is possible to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water. H1 and O2 would be much more combustible than gasoline, under the right conditions, but could generate enough energy to melt metal. That's the reasoning behind the less expensive and currently available part of this system.
The second part- the cat replacement, operates on a real phenomenon- plasma- the fourth state of matter. NONE of you watched all of each video, and set aside the bs comments of the actor they hired to read the tech. details. I did. Plasma is easily created. It does generate the heat of the sun. I worked with plasma generators for 7 years, and used it to melt all and every metal in existence, as well as all forms of metallic oxide ceramics.
All of this stuff has a basis in fact. All of you who took a 10 second look and laughed just show your lack of education---- just as I knew that you would.
However, THAT DOES NOT MEAN that these systems do what they claim, or justify the sales price. I am interested enough to get ALL of the available information. The ignorant and uneducated will stay that way because that is human nature. Lucky that you have so much company.
Hey- all of you "Flat Earth Society" fitfreaks who think you know internal combustion engine technology- here's a question for you.
How long could a 600 hp. supercharged diesel engine run with absolutely zero lubricating oil in the crankcase and absolutely zero coolant being pumped through the block? What would the eventual damage be to the engine block, heads, crankshaft, valves, bearings?
Come on- show your vast knowledge and years of experience, and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Show me what you "know".
What is obvious is your own lack of education in chemistry and physics.
Why do batteries using lead, sulfuric acid, and water blow up? (that means "explode into flames"). Is lead flammable? How about the acid? Does water burn? Why do electric water heaters explode and burn down houses?
Is nitrogen flammable? Is argon flammable? Sorry, I don't want this to hurt too much. The answer is no. But I can combine either or both of those inert gases with some electricity and create an ionized gas cloud that produces a temperature of 10,000 degrees F. By adding some hydrogen or helium, I can generate 12,000 degrees of heat and enough ultraviolet radiation to cook your skin off standing 2 feet away.
However, this thread attracted a lot of bs from the uneducated, as I suspected that it would. It is possible to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water. H1 and O2 would be much more combustible than gasoline, under the right conditions, but could generate enough energy to melt metal. That's the reasoning behind the less expensive and currently available part of this system.
The second part- the cat replacement, operates on a real phenomenon- plasma- the fourth state of matter. NONE of you watched all of each video, and set aside the bs comments of the actor they hired to read the tech. details. I did. Plasma is easily created. It does generate the heat of the sun. I worked with plasma generators for 7 years, and used it to melt all and every metal in existence, as well as all forms of metallic oxide ceramics.
All of this stuff has a basis in fact. All of you who took a 10 second look and laughed just show your lack of education---- just as I knew that you would.
However, THAT DOES NOT MEAN that these systems do what they claim, or justify the sales price. I am interested enough to get ALL of the available information. The ignorant and uneducated will stay that way because that is human nature. Lucky that you have so much company.
Hey- all of you "Flat Earth Society" fitfreaks who think you know internal combustion engine technology- here's a question for you.
How long could a 600 hp. supercharged diesel engine run with absolutely zero lubricating oil in the crankcase and absolutely zero coolant being pumped through the block? What would the eventual damage be to the engine block, heads, crankshaft, valves, bearings?
Come on- show your vast knowledge and years of experience, and ANSWER THE QUESTION. Show me what you "know".
What is obvious is your own lack of education in chemistry and physics.
Why do batteries using lead, sulfuric acid, and water blow up? (that means "explode into flames"). Is lead flammable? How about the acid? Does water burn? Why do electric water heaters explode and burn down houses?
Is nitrogen flammable? Is argon flammable? Sorry, I don't want this to hurt too much. The answer is no. But I can combine either or both of those inert gases with some electricity and create an ionized gas cloud that produces a temperature of 10,000 degrees F. By adding some hydrogen or helium, I can generate 12,000 degrees of heat and enough ultraviolet radiation to cook your skin off standing 2 feet away.
Dude, calm down. You sound like my brother on another forum, and he's bipolar.
How about this? How about in your attempt to prove what this website alludes to, you do an actual scientific proof instead of throwing a lot of semi-connected stuff around? Let's see you mod your car a step at a time like the website says, and report with full data on what you got? I'd like to see it. Until something scientifically proven comes along, I still say SCAM.
How about this? How about in your attempt to prove what this website alludes to, you do an actual scientific proof instead of throwing a lot of semi-connected stuff around? Let's see you mod your car a step at a time like the website says, and report with full data on what you got? I'd like to see it. Until something scientifically proven comes along, I still say SCAM.
Push My Button
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 4,997
From: Calgary, Alberta
I saw an article on Gizmag about a car using the HydroRunner and decided to check it out. They have results from a third-party on a test vehicle that showed fuel efficiency improvements of 84%.
But get this, a system for a 4,6 or 8 cylinder gas vehicle is $3,500. And, they suggest that 1 liter of water should last for 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Their system is not producing a ton of HOH but it is having a marked impact on fuel efficiency.
Check it out and let me know what you think.
But get this, a system for a 4,6 or 8 cylinder gas vehicle is $3,500. And, they suggest that 1 liter of water should last for 3,000 to 4,000 miles. Their system is not producing a ton of HOH but it is having a marked impact on fuel efficiency.
Check it out and let me know what you think.
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 124
From: Maryland
Sounds pretty shifty to me, I might believe that Hydrogen could increase efficency by increasing engine efficency from 60% to lets say 70%... but where is the rest of the energy coming from? The energy invested in the breakdown of the hydrogen needs to be accounted for as well, you would be getting a net loss in that aspect of it. Getting 84% increase in efficency just dosn't seem possible, plus they are claiming 10% torque increases as well. I suppose if there is a massive net loss in HP then it could be possible.
Just injecting hydrogen + oxygen to the intake system has a massive impact on the combustion efficiency. Also, the hydrogen acts as too boost the effective octane of the fuel so you can advance the timing on the engine -- giving you a power boost.
Thanks for the new info. Dave- I found the two links to be very interesting. If I needed to drive more than I do, the increasing cost of gas would force me to get into experimentation on such a system, and I would have the ability to obtain measurable results fast enough to make the effort worthwhile. But the fact is, I don't have the need or desire to drive enough to get into the pure research.
The "ready to go" systems are priced high enough to make me very cautious about spending that much money. I do believe that today's energy crisis will bring a workable HOH system to market. What I will wait for before buying is testimonials from fleets who use the system(s), like Taxi companies, UPS, and other commercial or charity-operated vehicle fleets. If one of them offers testimonials on the "HydroRunner" system, or some other one, then I would be confident that I would not be buying trouble. We are all in agreement that hydrogen and oxygen will burn and act as a supplement to the air/fuel mixture, but how much is enough, how much is too much, and what other alterations to a stock car are necessary are the questions that need to be thoroughly explained before you can expect to market a system priced between $3000. and $7000.
The "ready to go" systems are priced high enough to make me very cautious about spending that much money. I do believe that today's energy crisis will bring a workable HOH system to market. What I will wait for before buying is testimonials from fleets who use the system(s), like Taxi companies, UPS, and other commercial or charity-operated vehicle fleets. If one of them offers testimonials on the "HydroRunner" system, or some other one, then I would be confident that I would not be buying trouble. We are all in agreement that hydrogen and oxygen will burn and act as a supplement to the air/fuel mixture, but how much is enough, how much is too much, and what other alterations to a stock car are necessary are the questions that need to be thoroughly explained before you can expect to market a system priced between $3000. and $7000.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
For those of you who can't tell the difference between hard science and pseudo-science, don't waste your time visiting this link. For those who can, there is enough hard science here to be very interesting. My quotation has been acknowledged as being "in process". Here's the link:
PICC
PICC
First of all the combustion of gasoline is close to 100%; 'breaking down' the molecules into smaller ones would have to make methane, butane, propane for the molecules to be smaller. And no thimble-sized gadget is going to do that.
The combustion of methane isn't that different from octane, toluene, or other components of gasoline. And as far as getting greater efficiency in combustion, sorry. I think the guys who used to tout 'magnitizers' in the gas line to magnitize and better distribute gas molecules found a new home.
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 63
From: Ohio
You might want to check into that a little. It'd be great if it was that efficient. The engine would need to be compressed to a higher pressure which would require a higher octane to avoid knocking. That's why diesel is more efficient because of the higher pressure before the pressure itself ignites the fuel.
One question I have (Dave or manxman might be able to answer), I've done electrolysis before and what I've observed is that is a very SLOW process. Wouldn't that pose a problem for these?
One question I have (Dave or manxman might be able to answer), I've done electrolysis before and what I've observed is that is a very SLOW process. Wouldn't that pose a problem for these?
You might want to check into that a little. It'd be great if it was that efficient. The engine would need to be compressed to a higher pressure which would require a higher octane to avoid knocking. That's why diesel is more efficient because of the higher pressure before the pressure itself ignites the fuel.
One question I have (Dave or manxman might be able to answer), I've done electrolysis before and what I've observed is that is a very SLOW process. Wouldn't that pose a problem for these?
One question I have (Dave or manxman might be able to answer), I've done electrolysis before and what I've observed is that is a very SLOW process. Wouldn't that pose a problem for these?
If a manufacturer can produce a safe and effective system that is universal in its application, the stage is set for him to make a fortune, and there is PLENTY of investment capital available for a start-up company.
Also, re: how much is enough?, on pg. 4 of this thread Dave Brown posted a link to "H2 Extreme" where an inventor uses tanks of water along with his own design of electrodes to produce enough combustible gas to run a soldering micro-torch. Soldering does not take a huge amount of heat, and is usually done with propane. In the video demo of his electrolysis-powered torch, there were at least 4 tanks bubbling away to produce enough gas for one very small torch. It does not seem likely that a one-liter water bottle under you hood would be able to produce enough gas to produce the claimed wonderful results.
Last edited by manxman; Jun 25, 2008 at 06:58 PM.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
As far as diesel is concerned the higher compression and self-ignition of the intake fuel/air makes better combustion of less combustible fuels. The cleanup of the combustion products is much more diffcult because the fuel itself it less 'clean'. One of the big problems is sulfur content; suklfur in the combustion leads to oxides of sulfur and hydrosulfuric acid, which is a REAL nasty set of molecules floating around to corrode our lungs and paint surfaces.
That cleanup - getting sulfur out of diesel fuel - is the reason for diesel costing more than gasoline (before, kerosene - essentially diesel fuel - was 20-25% cheaper than gasoline. The process uses a urea compound and the process is costly.
If I may be permitted a joke in honor of George Carlin: we have to pee on the diesel fuel before we can make it safe for the environment. Sorry. George. No. wait, I'm not, he would have loved it.
PS if you find $4/gal prices bad vote against Democrats. Their many votes to prevent our drilling or building more refineries are the reason for $4 and going up prices for the next 5 years. There is no short term solution no matter what some dim-bulb politician says. Even if Congress' Democrats released those today by the time environmental impact procedures and building the rigs or refineries, nothing will happen to change supply for 5 years. In the meantime China alone will need as much or more fdrude to run their economy as we which means bidding will get tougher and prices higher. Boy, am I glad I got a 30 mpg Fit, a 30 mpg SE-R, and a 40 mpg Civic HX (no, its not a hybrid, its the last of Hondas high mpg gas tehnology engines. Which is why I say thats the 1700cc engine Honda should have put in the Fit. Not only faster than a Fit, gets better mpg)
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 124
From: Maryland
Is the Fit's engine similar to the HX's? Is the mileage difference because of the Fit's higher weight or taller profile? I never did get the rated gas highway mileage in the HX.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Hers now is approaching 100k and the overall mpg is 41.87 mpg; lately she's been asked by fellow workers and cognizent drivers if she'll sell her HX. Offeres of $15k have been made. She expects to get 250k on hers and then retire. The HX is highly prized for its light weight among the high performance modified crowd. IHer Civic is about 200 lb lighter than my CRX SiR; but about 70 hp short though.
The 1700 cc HX is very similar to the Fit including the vtec. Its larger of course primarily in length because the bore centers are bigger. Still, the Fit should have been designed around that engine for the ease of handling road requirements; the current 1500 cc requires too much downshifting to keep up economically. There's no doubt in my mind that a 1700 cc Fit would have ratings of 32 and 40 mpg.
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Unfortunately the Fit engine bay is not wide enough. But you never know what car crazies will do.
cheers..
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 63
From: Ohio
"most efficient and powerful engine in the world, with over 50% thermal efficiency. For comparison, the most efficient small 4-stroke motors are around 43% thermal efficiency (SAE 900648), and size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to area."
IC engines are nowhere near 100% efficient
IC engines are nowhere near 100% efficient
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
"most efficient and powerful engine in the world, with over 50% thermal efficiency. For comparison, the most efficient small 4-stroke motors are around 43% thermal efficiency (SAE 900648), and size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to area."
IC engines are nowhere near 100% efficient
IC engines are nowhere near 100% efficient
The combustion process is very efficient. The fact that the engine cannot efficiently extract energy from the combustion process is another matter.