A friend of mine knows the head of this technical school. This is real, and has incredible potential.

It probably would be very easy to outfit a "T".

"TTC Instructors Develop Hydrogen Car
Classes to Teach Layman to Convert Their Vehicles to Hydrogen"
http://www.henrycountian.com/news.php?viewStory=2490


Vince

What is the source of the immense amount of DC that you will require for the electrolysis of the water solution?

Where is the diatomic oxygen going after it is liberated from the hydrogen? Turning the current off will only cause the gases from being produced. They will not turn back into water without a spark.

They are in effect describing a perpetual motion machine. Once the battery runs down, the reaction will stop. You can not generate enough fuel to recharge the battery and propell the car.

There is also the problems of handling hydrogen gas which is a smaller atom than helium and it is odorless. Any leak into the cabin could be a nightmare.

Vince,

From the article; "Hydrogen and gas are a more combustive mixture than air and gas"

Are they saying that some amount of gasoline is still used? Also, don't you still need air/oxygen for the mixture to burn?

Vince, tom and Jerry,

I suspect there is a large amountof "non-technical reporter" involved in this story. As I interpret the article, they are making Hydrogenon the fly in the vehicle. They are then piping the gas into the fuel system and igniting the combined vapor.

Unanswered questions I have are:

1. Do they filter out the oxygen relesased in the electrolysis process, or is it also combined with the fuel?

2. As Tom states, where does the necessary electricity come from?

3. They are not replacing gasoline, but are augmenting it with the Hydrogen.

Wish I had taken some automotive combustion calsses in engineering school.

Sounds like a good time to call them and find out what is really going on. Tennessee Technology Center at McKenzie, 731-352-7506.

Tom

I am not a chemist. All i know is what is written in the article. After the seminar takes place i hope to know more.

These are all good questions. Tom M i agree with your interpretation of the article that the hydrogen is used as a compliment to the gasoline.

Its very interesting to say the least.

Vince

There are two Tom Ms Vince. I assume you meant Tom Mullins.

I still don't see any efficiency even if the hydrogen is used with the gasoline. Every hydrogren atom whether part of a gasoline molecule or by introduced by itself as H2 must combine with oxygen in order to properly combust. If there is not enough oxygen, then you get unburned hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide. If you combust too well at high temps like hydrogen tends to do, then you get nitrous oxides as part of your exhaust. In a modern car, the exhaust gas oxygen sensor (HEGO) figures out how well you're burning and then adjusts the incoming fuel so the prescence of extra hydrogen isn't going to add to any efficiency. But you're losing efficiency by making your alternator charge the battery that's splitting water into atoms. Your intake manifold should be contributing oxygen to help combustion, not extra hydrogen to richen the burn. It just doesn't add up to me.

The other Tom M.

Tom Miller,

The article says the hydrogen/gas mixture "tricks" the engine... Not sure what that means, but i agree with your evaluation - not knowing what the "trick" is.

Here is the full article for those who cannot open the link.

TTC Instructors Develop Hydrogen Car
Classes to Teach Layman to Convert Their Vehicles to Hydrogen
Posted: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 9:39 pm

Three instructors at the Tennessee Technology Center at McKenzie have developed a way to fight the high cost of gasoline. Biomedical Instructor Donald Gearin, Automotive Instructor Dan Townsend, and Electronics Instructor Bruce Moore scoured the Internet to find a simple, low cost, practical way for automobiles to burn hydrogen instead of air in their fuel mixture. The trio converted the school’s truck to a hydrogen-burning vehicle and increased the gas mileage by 50 percent.

The process involves mixing water and lye in a container, running an electrical current through it and capturing the hydrogen gas produced. This gas is then fed into the fuel system. Hydrogen and gas are a more combustive mixture than air and gas and the combination “tricks” the engine into using less gas but producing the same power. This is a safer process than some, because there is no storage of hydrogen gas. As soon as the electrical current is turned off in the container, the hydrogen converts back to water. There is no volatile gas stored.

The group will be conducting classes to teach the general public how to make their own conversions. The students must possess a working knowledge of wiring and automobiles and in two Saturdays, they can learn how to modify their own vehicles.

The first class is Saturday July 19, 7:30-11:30 a.m. and again on August 2nd.
“I am proud of the effort that went into their work. Donald, Dan, and Bruce are making a difference in the environment and the wallets of our community, noted TTC Director Elizabeth Check.

For more information call Tennessee Technology Center at McKenzie, 731-352-7506.

I went to the schools website. they have a video on the front page. they believe in it.

http://www.ttcmckenzie.edu/


Vince

If these guys can increase the mileage on their vehicle by 50% they are going to be billionaires many times over and will likely win the Nobel Peace Prize for science next year.

Are they the same guys who invented cold fusion nuclear technology a few years back? Link:

http://www.surrealscoop.com/2008/01/scientists-admit-to-cold-fusion-hoax.html

This senario is just like corn being used to produce ethanol and the price of food from corn skyrocketing. If this works the cost of lye will shoot up and those of us who make home made soap will no longer be able to bathe!!!
....Michael Pawelek

Hydrogen on demand systems have been used for the last 30 plus years that I know of. I have been playing with it myself for the last few months. HOD systems are a lot safer then stored hydrogen since you make it as you need it instead of storing it in a pressurized tank. It would take a lot of gas production to run a car (about 50 liters of Gas production per minute, for each liter of displacement eg. a 5 liter engine would take about 250 liters of gas per minuet production depending on average running RPM) but it can be used to supplement regular fuel.

The gas that is produced is a mixture of both Hydrogen and Oxygen.

I have installed one on my 1951 ford and it seemed to have a pleasant effect on it, it idled smoother and seemed to have a little bit more power, I could not get any results on possible mileage increase since the cell was drawing more current then the generator could produce and I wasn't able to consistently drive with it on. I do have friends that have run it on there cars and they say it has given them better mileage.

I plan on building one that will take a pulsed DC current instead of Straight DC and installing it on one of my Model T's but that may be a few months away.

If any one has any interest you can PM or E-mail me as I have several PDF files and other Open Source articles and plans for different cells.

Kyle Augustin
Olathe Colorado

To : The three instructors of Tennessee Technology Centre.
I am very interesting in your development of the Hydro Car ,if it work on the long term, that doesnt matter,but at least you are working on at
BUT BE CAREFUL !!!!!that the oil companys and the Covernment even our Covernment in Holland dont like such an Development they are crying about the oil price'BUT THEY WONT MISS THE BIG MONEY!!!!!!!
I dont belive that Gasoline is the only car fuel
If you need a Model T engine for your experiment
Call me
Greetings and all the best
Toon Boer

Here's one from a fellow in north Alabama. Can't say if it works or not but it has been picked up by many prominent media outlets, read for yourselves. Food for thought.


HARTSELLE AL -- If you are tired of paying $3.50 to $4 per gallon for gasoline, Larry Thrasher wants you to visit him.

He won't be able to lower the cost of gas. But, he said, his generated hydrogen system will increase your miles per gallon and decrease the number of trips you make to the gas station.

After more than a year of research and testing, Thrasher said he has perfected a system that will allow your vehicle to run on hydrogen and gasoline.

Long range, his plan is to run a vehicle on hydrogen only.

Hydrogen is a highly flammable and colorless gas that is the most abundant element in the universe.

Because of the number of electronics in vehicles, he said, his hydrogen system still depends on some gasoline.

Since installing the hydrogen fuel system on his eight-cylinder Cadillac, Thrasher said his fuel efficiency has increased from 19 miles per gallon to 53. His wife's 1996 Toyota gets about 71 miles per gallon.

"I was just tired of these big oil companies raking in record profits while the little man and people on fixed income were suffering," Thrasher said.

A former teacher at several technical schools with more than 30 years of automotive experience, Thrasher started researching his system about 16 months ago.

Convinced that he could design it and make it work, he told friends in August that his vehicle would one day run on water.

"They laughed, but it didn't hurt my feelings," he said.

Larry Whitt, who doubted Thrasher, has changed his mind.

He is so convinced of the product that Whitt has become Thrasher's partner and installed one of the systems in his Chevrolet truck.

The turning point for Whitt came when Thrasher asked him to take a trip to Good Hope.

The men went to a station in Hartselle and filled Thrasher's vehicle until it would hold no more gas.

They returned to the same station after the 53-mile trip, and Thrasher's vehicle had used only one gallon of gas.

"We went from Hartselle to Good Hope and back on one gallon of gasoline," Whitt said. "I know it works, and this brought me into it."

Thrasher's system is relatively simple. For his vehicle, Thrasher installed a 14-gallon-water supply in his trunk and a pump to get the water to a generator under the hood. The tank could be smaller and the water could come from the windshield fluid container.

Thrasher is applying for a patent for the generator components and did not want to release the details.

He did say the generator has 12 electrodes that help produce the hydrogen. The hydrogen is pumped through a valve that is connected to the vehicle's fuel injection system.

There is a switch on the valve under the hood that allows the vehicle owner to switch from hydrogen to total gasoline.

A gauge inside the vehicle monitors the temperature, amperage and hydrogen pressure.

Since hydrogen is hotter, the vehicle automatically will switch back to gasoline if the engine becomes too hot, Thrasher said.

Because of the explosive properties of hydrogen, Thrasher said his system does not store the gas.

"It's only produced when the engine is cranked," he said. "My No. 1 concern in designing this has always been safety."

So far, Thrasher has installed the system on five vehicles. He has several vehicles waiting to get the system outside his shop on Blowing Springs Road in Hartselle.

A South Carolina company plans to have the $5,500 system installed on its trucks, he said.

Thrasher said the knowledge to construct the system has been available for years. He successfully cranked his vehicle with hydrogen at 2:30 p.m. April 18.

"I ran around my shop and yelled for joy," he said.

To be able to make every component of the system in his shop, Thrasher purchased a milling machine.

"This allows me to control the cost," he said.

I dunno...Bob

Here is Ben Jordan's hydrogen powered Model T
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/default.aspx?carID=7169&eventID=7&catID=438&w hichpage=

A lot of spin has been put on these ideas/inventions but none have gotten to the big 3 who would love any idea that would continue the sale of their big land cruisers. Go to YouTube and type in Stan Meyer to see some this hype, here's one; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73MeitNHUM. You can improve on something but you can't change the laws of Physics. Simple put you can't get more out then you put in. This message will self destructs in 10 seconds. Bob

What a load of bull. Here's another one:
http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=posilarue

These crooks come out of the wood work when ever there is a panic situation that makes people suspend their disbelief.

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Homer Simpson to Lisa Simpson when she demonstrates her perpetual motion machine.

The laws simplified:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't even break even.
3) You can't come close to breaking even.

It takes more energy to split water into its atomic components than you get back in heat when you burn it.

AC (alternators) and DC generators heat up when they generate electricity. This heat is lost energy.

Batteries heat up when they are charged. This again is lost energy.

Electrolysis of water causes the water solution to heat up in response to the applied current. This is because of current resistance. This is energy lost as heat.

There are tricks such as regenerative braking and other energy storage methods that allow you to utilize energy in a vehicle more efficiently. This is why the Escape Hybrid and the Prius are desireable cars. Every engine utilizing the Carnot cycle (or the Miller Cycle as does the Escape) is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. It all boils down to heat or "one minus T sub L over T sub H".

And if you do burn hydrogen, brew a lot of it. A 3.0 four stroke engine operating at part throttle or 50 percent volumetric efficiency at a casual 1000 rpm still requires 750 liters of air/fuel per minute. (1.5l x 1000 rpm x every other rev is an intake)

It's wonderful to think that someone came up with a miracle engine, but this ain't it.

Correction. I double checked my facts. Escape and Prius use the Atkinson cycle on their engines and not the Miller cycle.

Michael,

If that happens does that mean we would have lots of B.O. diesel?


Vince

Interesting that these "breakthroughs" come from instructors at technical colleges, not professors at universities or researchers at labs.

Cow Magnets!!!!!!

Vince, Sounds like you have the idea straight!
Signed...."Stinky" Pawelek

Since Hydrogen is the single most abundant element in the universe it makes sense to want to use it as a fuel. Trouble is that it doesn't just sit there waiting to be collected and used. You have to find something that "carries" it like Water or even sugar and then GET the hydrogen from it and then use it. If you BURN it in your motor you only get about 1/3 of the available energy in it BUT if you use it in a fuel cell to generate electricity then you "GET BACK" essentially all the electricity that you "PUT IN" when separating the hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis. Thus in effect you have a storage medium that the typical battery car does NOT have. This whole concept as a "system" is a workable way to do it in my book because waiting at the end is a huge prize - a light electric car with zero emissions whose exhaust is distilled water. Nothing is burned.

If you take X amount of electricity and charge electric car batteries with it you then can drive for a short trip (maybe 50 miles in a warm climate) while you use up that X amount of electricity but you won't get ALL of the energy you put in because the batteries themselves do not store it all and besides being super heavy, which doesn't help the range at all, they also don't hold very much energy to begin with. There simply IS no future in a battery powered car without a huge breakthrough in batteries but if you look at the fuel cell car you will see that if you take X amount of electricity and perform electrolysis of water and then store the Hydrogen and put it back together with Oxygen in the fuel cell (which does NOT weigh even a fraction of the lead acid battery counterpart) and then take the resultant electricity and put it to an electric motor you will have a system that is rather efficient, has zero emissions, is not based on "perpetual motion" and does exactly what most folks want from a battery powered car. Honda's Clarity FCX is a real car with a range of about 200 miles while Toyota approach claims over 400 mile range but their's is more experimental at this point. My money is on the fuel cell car since it gives back the energy available in the Hydrogen (about 3 times as much as when burning it) and the byproduct is simply WATER and nothing else. A fuel cell is simply the reverse of electrolysis - you put the Hydrogen and Oxygen back together and get water again PLUS the electricity back that you used to separate it. The SYSTEM is efficient and got us to the moon. I think it will emerge as the winner once all the silly "wonder" inventions are all investigated.

I personally have no interest in any technology that still uses fossil fuel since the oil producers have monopolistic power and can simply raise the price to offset any gains in fuel economy and we are right back where we started but with their only needing to produce less oil to make the same money - a win win for THEM. Only if we produce the fuel (whether gas, hydrogen...etc) ourselves do we gain freedom but I like the idea of getting rid of pollution too.

Your mileage may vary.

To all;
I am new here. My primary interest & reason for joining is HHO production in HOD systems. This is not new tech. nor is it rocket science. Garrett ran his car on plain water in 1935. Stan Meyers did the same using modern components & materials. His New Zealand video's where he explained his process have been removed from you-tube. They were 21/2 hrs. long. What you can see there now are two 15 min. clips which merely talk about him and a little of what he was doing before he was poisoned & his water car & plans stolen.
HOD systems work and are much easier to build & install as they augment the gasoline,not replace it.
I suggest anyone really interested in this go to Energetic Forum.com to either answer your questions or contribute your knowledge, then report back here. It's a much older site & has many top people as well as folks experimenting & posting their results. Many have various cell types installed in on-the-road vehicles reporting 30%-50% increase in mpg & they aren't trying to sell you anything, just get the technology out there. It doesn't take $5,000 to get a decent increase in mpg. You can safely do it for $200-$300 depending on your vehicle.
I hope you all visit this site, both honest inquirers & rabid skeptics. I am always open to questions or comments too.
Al

John Reagan;
While HFC's got us to the moon they also nearly blew Appollo 13 out of the sky and they are still having trouble with them. Recent shuttle launches have been delayed or postponed because of them. So while they may provide a solution in the future that is aways off and frankly I don't care to drive around with a bomb of that potential in my vehicle.
The best solution is to use HOD systems for now in existing ICE engines on the way to using plain water. These engines may be replaced with something else in the future but we have to deal with millions of them that are in the field now and will continue for years. By using HOD systems with other modifications like using Firestorm plugs to replace O.E.M.plugs we can achieve even greater fuel effiency & reduce pollution to near zero while saving everyone $.
Al

I thought this an interesting piece of history---I was told by an older employee where we purchase our welding supplies, who also stocks Hydrogen stored in cylinders, that years ago before detecting instruments they would walk up to a cylinder with a straw broom in front of their face to check for the colorless flame of the Hydrogen

Al:

I think whatever technology finally gets us off fossil fuel will be welcome but I think it is very important for us to all NOT get caught up in opinions masquerading as facts. For the record it is a real stretch to suggest that the OXYGEN tank (not hydrogen) that exploded on Apollo 13 is somehow then proof that the fuel cell is unsafe. Planes are unsafe yet we fly them and accept the risk since we deem it safe enough. Apollo 13 had a failure in which one of its thermostatic heater switches had its contacts welded shut which caused that heat to heat up and cause an actual fire in the wiring which overheated an Oxygen tank which exploded (actually it vented via one of its discs designed to let go before an even larger explosion). That switch had its contacts welded shut because it was rated at 26 VDC but was subjected to over 60 VDC for 8 hours while the space craft sat on the ground. The space ship electricals ran on 26VDC but the ground power was about 65VDC so they had upgraded EVERYTHING in the space craft to operate on the increased voltage but somebody forgot the thermostat switch. A simple ELECTRICAL part design error. To blame the fuel cell TECHNOLOGY for that is a stretch. The people needed the Oxygen to breath. When that tank exploded it severely damaged Oxygen tank number 2 which vented and that caused the loss of electrical power since in space there is no way to get Oxygen by opening up a window and it takes both O and H to make electricity with the fuel cell. If there had been NO fuel cell on that space craft there STILL would have been the tank of oxygen since people have to have it and since the failure was electrical there still would have been the fire and BOOM.

We seem to think we know the risks of gasoline and we judge H as unsafe but I would suggest that if we were a society that had been using H for 100 years and were asked to evaluate the use of GASOLINE as an alternative now - we would be horrified at the prospect of a fuel that does not immediately dissipate into the air but rather hangs around on the ground to burn us alive. The unknown is furtile ground for any sort of horror story. Hollywood scared a whole generation into thinking that flying was unsafe yet it is far safer than driving for the same distance.

I am sure my musings won't be the last word on this but since this is a T forum, I will withdraw but am encouraged that so many are thinking of solutions to our problems. Our problems ARE surmountable so long as we don't try to legislate technology.

It's hard to beat gasoline, and especially diesel, for the amount of energy for pound of weight carried. Toyota hybrids weigh on the order of 500 lb more than their gas counterparts.

Nearly ten years ago, Ford showed the predecessor of their Escape hybrid. I believe it had a fuel cell. It weighed about 1,000 more than its gas equivalent. My hot foot commuting neighbor loves his new hybrid Escape. It gets 35 mpg, vs. 17 mpg in the late model Z car it replaced.

It's tough to save energy by adding weight. More weight requires heavier tires, brakes, suspension and structure.

When you refine, you get fuel oils, diesel/kerosene (jet)/heating oil, and you get lighter ends that include lots of gasoline. Gasoline was a waste by-product of producing kerosene and fuel oil at the beginning of the 20th century. By 1912, there were complaints about the lower quality of gas available, as cars had multiplied and electric lights were replacing oil lamps.

By 1925, the consumption of gas vs. fuel oils was so out of balance that the octane had been sacrificed and Ford had to resort to the vaporizer. Lead saved the day into the 1930s, where diesel consumption began to take up the surplus of oils.

Since WWII, there has been a relative balance of jet/diesel consumption vs. gasoline that has kept refining efficiency up. If we suddenly replaced 10% of gas consumption with diesel, the unbalance would drive diesel prices through the roof, and gas would get much cheaper. Maybe it's higher diesel/jet consumption that's driving prices higher now. That's how it appears.

Bottom line: we have to be careful about messing with the ratios of fuel consumption. We have a huge surplus of natural gas available, and wind power can replace some or most of that. Natural gas for cars is 63 cents a gasoline-equivalent gallon in Utah, but it carries a weight penalty, too.

I haven't verified it, but was told yesterday that the third largest producer of oil is: the US. That's still only a third of our consumption.

In spite of all the wailing in CONgress, the goal of the oil companies is not to put gas in your tank, but to maximize their profits. Hardly anybody in CONgress or the media the guts to call them on it.

-------
"Is ExxonMobil's future running dry?
The petroleum giant is shying from risky exploration and spending money on buying back stock. Over the long haul, those moves could lead the company to go private or disappear."

By Jim Jubak
ARE WE WITNESSING THE DEATH OF ExxonMobil?

Strange question to ask with oil above $120 a barrel and ExxonMobil reporting $11 billion in first-quarter profits?

Not if you understand that ExxonMobil's management has bet the company. If that bet is wrong, over the next 15 years or so, investors will get to watch the gradual disappearance of ExxonMobil...

Could ExxonMobil reinvest more in the business of finding oil? Absolutely. The company spent $8 billion in the first quarter of 2008 alone.

But ExxonMobil has decided not to.

A CULTURE OF INVESTMENT DISCIPLINE
Other oil companies may be scrambling to find oil in every nook and cranny. Other oil companies may be willing to invest billions in risky and potentially marginal fields. But not ExxonMobil. In management's estimation, investing more in exploration and development would not be a sound business decision at this time. Such investments would not generate the high level of return the company targets in its investment decisions.

To understand those decisions, you've got to understand ExxonMobil's corporate culture. This is a company that prides itself on making very disciplined investment decisions, based always on the return on invested capital.

Read the rest here: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inv....RunningDry.aspx

rdr

It is important to remember that a fuel cell is an energy storage device, not a source of energy. A fuel cell makes it possible to safely use hydrogen. As of today we have no convenient or cheap way to make hydrogen.

Al Hull,

If your company has a device which performs as you say it should be sold to every car manufacturer. Your device would revolutionize the auto industry and cause the stock market to go bonkers if it were truly doing what you claim.

Ah; the current increase in fuel prices brings forth the usual mix of those ignorant in the most basic physics, engineering, and economics, as well as those whose gift seems to be in promoting various false hopes and dreams for their own gain. Now, back to the Model T, the vehicle that only seems to defy the laws of physics, engineering, and economics...

To answer all your questions enter "Water 4 Gas" into your browser.You will all be rewarded.

Pinz of Perth Australia

Tony,

I've read it. Same BS, different day. Trolling for suckers. Only rewarding to the guy who gets the $300.

Royce

As long as the wild claims persist....

Of course hydrogen powered cars get better gas mileage. All the hydrogen gas makes them lighter so it takes less fuel to push them down the road.

This is why a hydrogen powered car goes faster than a helium powered car. Since the helium atoms are twice the size of hydrogen, the car goes much slower.

The reason these systems are wired to only produce hydrogen while the engine is running is simple. If the hydrogen were not consumed instantly upon creation, the car would lighten to the point where it might not be where you parked it.

Royce, I bought the books made the cell, installed it last Saturday, still in early days of testing have not yet installed a map sensor, @ this stage am very happy with current results so am making another cell to make it a dual cell system, then comes the map sensor instalation to complete the system,all up so far has only cost $150 Aust.All reports from other users have been very positive.

Tony, why would you need a different MAP sensor? and how will this installation affect the operation of the O2 sensor? Sounds like this would confuse the ECM

Tony,

Reports from other users on these type products are written by the same hack who is selling the stuff. You've already wasted $150. Stop before you damage the catylitic converter. It will be cheaper to stop now. There is no savings on gasoline mileage to be had.

Ricks
Your statement "We have a huge surplus of natural gas available" is incorrect. At the moment there is a adequate supply. However in 20 years that is unlikely to be the case. The problem is that it is difficult to transport across oceans (unlike oil). While there appears to be significant quantities to be produced in the Arctic, it would appear that your next president (Obama) wants to fight with your best friend to the north so the possibilities of easy pipeline construction are not likely. I see your big city mayors now don't want to buy our oil either. Fortunately the rest of the world (China Japan etc.) are quite willing to buy it, and our new tanker terminal will be on line in about 3-4 years on the Pacific coast. This will be long before self suficiency can be achieved in the lower 48 states. Currently we are the largest supplier of gas and oil to the US with the ability to supply substantially more.
Just food for thought.

Les, you are indeed our best friend. There is a pipeline hopefully coming through SD in the near future. There have been votes and debates on building a refinery in my hometown of Elk Point, just North of Sioux City, Iowa. I hope it goes through. I've always felt welcome in Canada.
Noel

Sorry, Les, I misspoke (politico talk for screwup). In his testimony to a CONgressional committee on power lines last week, T. Boone Pickens says 20% of our electric power can come from wind, freeing up the nat gas that they use now. The nat gas could be used for cars.

Canada has competition from Mexico for supplying us with nat gas. I believe that line was built maybe a dozen years ago.

Nat gas terminals are planned for Oxnard, Calif, Portland, Oregon, and who knows where else, so you're right, it is no longer a landlocked product. I wonder if it will ever be as portable as crude?

rdr

Btw, Les, what do you hear up there about the North American Union?

rdr

We already have a LNG port here at Freeport, Texas on Quintana Island that has a peak download capacity of 1.75 Bcf per day. Heavy security from what I hear so the bad guys don't make it go kaboom....Michael Pawelek

The production version of the Honda Clarity (their version of FC car) includes a home power station that cracks natural gas for hydrogen and provides heat and power for the rest of the house too. This is smart marketing on Honda's part since this way they do NOT have to wait for infrastructure of filling stations to emerge at the start of things. With the home H generation station, a commuter can buy and use their "Clarity" FC car right now and drive it all over the place locally. It has a range of 280 miles. It is nice looking thing as modern sedans go but of course not as cute as a T.

Hey Ralph - you said Ford FC car was 1000 lbs heavier than other cars - WHY?? Since the FC type cars are NOT a battery car as we normally think of them - there is really nothing inherent in the FC approach that makes it overly heavy. The Honda FC car is same wheel base as their ACCORD and weighs only slightly more (fully loaded with accessories) than the bare Accord and LESS than the fully loaded ACCORD V6.

Ford made a deal with BP to put in Hydrogen filling stations for THEIR version of the FC car but all I can find out about it is that the first Ford/BP filling station is in place in Sacramento. My oldest son Kurt lives there so I have him out looking for it ha ha. I'll report back if he finds it.

FWIW - Jay Leno also told an interviewer that he thought the FC car was the car to bet on. I was amazed somewhat at that until lately when I got a different image of him from behind the camera. I know I am probably alone on this but I really want to own and drive an electric car before I park myself in that great swap meet in the sky.

I don't understand why we can't make a car that gets 50 MPG without all the electric motors and gizmos people are working on. I had a car that was built in 1977 that got 36 MPG in town and another built in 1989 that got 44 MPG. I would still be driving the 89 but the frame rusted away and the front wheel fell off so I am now looking for my next high MPG car. People think 40 MPG is good with a battery running the car but I don't. I think I could have got 50 out of the 89 but never had a chance to lean it down before it broke. None of my cars ran on diesel either.

Bob

I didn't waste any time looking at that heavyweight Ford, John, after I saw its weight.

I've ridden in a couple of Prius, and the silence at a stoplight is spooky.
------

50 mpg = 2 gal per hundred miles.
40 mpg = 2.5 gal / hundred miles.
30 mpg = 3.3 gal / hundred miles.
20 mpg = 5 gal per hundred miles.
10 mpg = 10 gal per hundred miles.

So you see, there is more difference between 20 and 30 than there is between 30 and 50. There's even more difference between 10 and 12 mpg than between 30 and 50 mpg.

Americans figure it all wrong. Germans were using liters per 100 km when I lived there 40 years ago. It makes the comparisons more rational.

I finally heard this same comparison on the radio yesterday, so maybe we will go to the more sensible comparison eventually.

rdr

Just received this link, although I saw something similar maybe a year ago. Pond scum for bio-fuel.

This would be a great use for your greenhouses in the off-season, Michael Pawelek.

http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html

rdr

R.D. It hurts my soul for you to mention the subject (Pond Scum and Algae)when over the last 30 years in the nursery business I've spent thousands of dollars on chlorine and bromine products to get rid of the stuff and all the time I should have been pouring it into my gas tanks! ....Michael Pawelek
PS-It also grows on the creek behind our house in the heat of Summer when there is no rain and the water becomes stagnant.

This does not concern electrolysis or using hydrogen as a motor fuel. Years ago I worked with an engineer, Bob Weigel (not the test pilot), who was fascinated by ultrasonic devices. He tried mixing gasoline and water in an ultrasonic cleaner and produced sort of an emulsion that would remain stable for several days. So he would mix up a batch and use the mixture for fuel in his 50's era Plymouth. The engine ran fine, not much power but the car did perform acceptably in city traffic. On occassion we would climb in and he would drive us to lunch. This was perilous, we never knew whether the car would run out of fuel, since he never mixed up more than a couple of gallons at a time since eventually the mix would separate. Bob referred to the engine operating as "An Internal Combustion Steam Engine." Nothing ever came of his experiment other than his demonstrating he could operate the old Plymouth flat head 6, unmodified, on a mixture of about one third water and the rest gasoline. He had plans to develop an operational system that mixed the water and fuel in real time to avoid separation but he didn't pursue them.

J.C. Whitney in Chicago used to sell water injection system add on gadgets when I was a teenager. Those things were also advertised in the back pages of Popular Mechanics magazines too. Often wondered about them but J.C. Whitney sold many things that would each save at least 25% of your gas for each one. A friend said that if you installed half the gadgets in that catalog that all saved gas, you would have to stop every few miles and drain some gas off the tank to keep it from overflowing.

John what are you doing up so lat? J

well, i don't really know squat about the technical aspects of the subject comments, other than to recall that way back when in college having a professor who was the former guru of Ships Propulsion Development for the Navy who felt he proved to us through board and homework assignments that the efficiency of a carbureted IC engine was only on the order of 30%. He may have been wind, he may have been spot on.

I am amazed to still see the water fuel stuff going around and around. Been going since I was a kid and that was a long long time ago! But, where is the real evidence would be my question? Surely the rumors that prevailed when I was a kid that each and every of these water guru's that had a patent issued,had been bought off by GM passed into urban legend decades ago!

I eventually went into patent law studies as a minor only to discover that actual proof of a patent having an obvious chance of working as a requirement went out with the dinosaurs! If the idea was 'novel' as a pre-requirement, could be understood to logically follow from premise through to conclusion by patent examiners, then a patent could issue.

Thought for the day....

A 30 mile walk at the blazing speed of 3mph is roughly equal to the energy contained in a gallon of gas...so does that mean a human AFE [average fuel economy] is equal to 30 mpg of avoidance use? TRUE? or FALSE?

ps...sorry Ralph...you'll be glad to know I'll be stateside again within the next 48 hours and normalcy and a long R&R will cure all of these mental meanderings...haha

I've really enjoyed your emails, George, and I believe I owe you an answer to the last one. It had a lot of good info.

Is your stateside email addresss the same? Is there a community of ex-pats over there?

Dunno about the 30 mpg walking, but I do know it is rare for an American to walk for transportation. They circle the parking lot, to park close to the entrance to the gym. Road taxes pay for roads, of course, but not for much bike or walker accommodation, and people accept that.

When we're both home, my neighbor drags me out for a 1/20 GGE (gasoline gallon equivalent) hike. I learned of GGE from a CNG site.

rdr

Ralph, yep, that email works. Aha, now I have to go look at the CNG site, I was being a wise guy with my AFE-avoidance remark, and someone already beat me to it.

Where I normally am located the expat community consists of ONE...lol...me! The closest cluster of international ex-pats is about 100 miles away and that was a bit of a long commute possibility. But that community does have American Federal Mogul,Diamond Power [B&W boiler stack and soot cleaner division], Owens Illinois, Budweiser, a few other brand names and a few sole renegades...i.e. "The Windmill Man"...but he is a story for off forum...lol There is a substantial French enclave there also since Peugot came to that area.

When I get back, I'll have the bandwidth available to send you about 10 minutes of shakey video that I shot last Sunday to show an area that was all rice paddy and 100% peasant but 3 years ago. I filmed it for the missus who hasn't been here since August 2005 when that part of town was 'outback country'...just set the camera on the dash of the A6 and drove along concrete ribbon for 10 minutes of what was cow paths and shallow water when she was here.

Here is a follow up regarding the Tennessee school using hydrogen technology. It looks pretty positive.

This is from a recent email from someone involved in the project.

"McKenzie’s hydrogen on demand class will be featured on another TV station tonight at 6:00. They are here finishing the video taping now. The instructor and one of the students have also been invited to Washington DC by Skills USA and the National Career and Technical Education Association. Congressman Tanner will meet them in Washington DC for a photo and press event. The first TV report is on a video box on the front page of our website www.ttcmckenzie.edu and we will replace it tomorrow with the new one if you miss the report. "


Vince

Vince,

That's a crock of poo.

Respectfully,
Royce

A fella I work with is running something similar on his Toyota pickup and claims he is getting an average of 5 mpg increase. He bought this "Hydrogen Booster" from some fella who I don't know.

The separated hydrogen and oxygen are drawn into the intake via a vacuum line. Since it is fuel injected, the oxygen sensor recognizes the difference in the exhaust and adjusts the gasoline accordingly.

Vince,
Very interesting, keep us posted.
Bob

Ray,

People don't like to admit it when they've made a stupid mistake. Your friend with the Toyota pickup has been duped by the criminally stupid inventers of this bogus device. Now he's trying to convince you that he didn't waste his money. This scam has been exposed as fraud for a couple years now.

Royce

If this worked as claimed then every new car would be equipped, given the amount of money that is spent on fuel economy improvement, both to sell cars and meet Federal CAFE requirements.

The "oxygen" sensor is located in the exhaust, not the intake, so the oxygen and hydrogen are consumed by the time it reaches the sensor.

Royce, could be. I can't back up his claims, only repeating them. I'm not endorsing anything concerning these claims! When, or should I say "IF", I get the time to sit down and play with the system I might be able to form a more informed opinion, but for now I can only say I don't think the mileage difference could possibly be significant due to the low volue of hydrogen produced.


David, (respectfully) as for oxygen sensors, I am very aware of where they are located and what they do. You might want to do a little bit of research as you are totally misinformed as to what their purpose is, what they senses and why, and what happens when it senses it. I know very well what it does, as well as what is going on in the rest of a fuel system (both multi-port and TBI), and I'm not going to waste my time taking your bait and get drawn into this pissing contest

Royce,

You stand corrected. That would be methane, not hydrogen.

Tim will be driving a a 1982 toyota corolla from Paris Tenn. to Minneapolis Min. this week - a total of 1600 miles, with this system in place.

The car normally gets about 37mpg on the highway.

I will have a mileage report hopefully next week. I do know that he has been driving around town this week with the unit on, getting 44mpg.

We shall see.

Vince

Vince,

Your business model is to sell fraudulent devices that don't work to people who don't want them and know you are a crook. Good luck with that. Quit wasting our time.

Royce,

Your business is not to police these forums. If Vince wants to share real data, that is his business. Why don't you try to let people come to their own conclusions? As stated here on the forum before, you are an ass. But before you go and get all defensive, don't bother, because my opinion doesn't matter due to the fact that I'm not man enough to sign my name.

Vince is a member of our Model T club. I know him personally and can assure you that he is not a crook, or even anything close. He's a great guy, an enthusiastic T-er and has a great family as well.

I once heard it said the only exercise some people get is jumping to conclusions....

Dick

I didn't realize Vince was trying to sell anything, seems he is just passing on information. Did I miss something?
Bob

Dick,

Ok, then Vince is only guilty of spreading information about fraudulent devices and wasting our time. I stand corrected. I am sorry he and his son have been chumped by a crook.

Royce

Vince,
Did you attend any of the classes? How were they received?
Bob

Royce, if it's all the same to you, I'll make my own decisions about what is a waste of my time and what isn't. That's not an area where I need help from anyone else.

You have known from the first posting what this thread was about and yet you appear to have been following it. I guess that means that you're wasting your own time.

Dick

Dick,

Please, don't make any decision based solely on what I or anyone else tells you. One of the great things about our country is that people can't be jailed for petty fraud. Freedom of speech is the only protection we have for petty fraud. If Vince has the right to speak on our forum about fraudulent products then I have the right to call his fraud for what it is.

Automotive fraud gadgets have been around almost as long as the automobile. Thousands upon thousands of such devices were made and successfully marketed for the Model T. Lots of gadgets were made that claimed to make your Model T faster, or run cooler, or get better gas mileage. Some people collect them today, for example Speedy Bill's carburetor and water pump collections in Lincoln NE.

The same goes for fraudulent medical devices and medicines. I get emails several times a day trying to sell me pills that magically cure all sorts of things from hair loss to marital aids.

Look on ebay, there are perhaps ten thousand advertisements right now for these retarded "hydrogen" gas mileage enhancers. The guy making these devices is getting rich. The poor dummies who buy them are getting disappointed and (in some cases) damaging their cars.

First of all - Thanks Dick for those kind words - not sure i deserve all of them but i really appreciate them.

I have no stake in this technology and will not be involved in the sale of this product. I am skeptical of its success as well, however what i am hearing sounds very promising. I may even try this myself.

I am sure there were a lot of people who told Henry Ford he was scamming the public when he first threw his ideas out there. I hope these guys succeed big time. It will only help us all. If they dont succeed, well then they have at least gained knowledge.

Thanks again Dick. I will keep everyone updated.

vince

Vince, well the part about your family is true anyway...

Why hasn't anybody mentioned in this "discussion" that gasoline is hydrocarbon?

Yeh, complex hydrogen and carbon molecules. How is adding more hydrogen to a hydrocarbon going to help? The refiner could do that more efficiently if it worked.

rdr

Oh, and fooling the oxy sensors? Probably would make the car run too lean. . You know what that does to valves, cooling system, etc.

rdr

Smart @$$

ooops - Sorry Ricks i am too slow that was for Dick

Vince

Automobile? ridiculous, It'll never work!

I think P.T. Barnum and Henry Ford were around about the same time period and most folks knew the difference in what each was selling - but not everyone.

What I have noticed in these scam technology sales and yes I am going to call them a SCAM in that they all seek to attain credibility by "association". They often say they have a patent pending or indeed have had a patent issued to them. Doesn't this prove it works? Not in the least! One can get a patent on lots of things that don't even work but they sure do make it sound like it is on the level - right? Often the patent only seems to be about the amazing invention but if you check it out they perhaps have patented a pump linkage or something that has no bearing at all on the actual device of interest but is just some part of its workings. If there is enough publicity then of course some congressman invites them to DC to demonstrate their invention - does that show it is legit? No it doesn't since the congressman might have his own reasons for wanting to get in on the hype of any unproven new technology so he can demonstrate his own agenda to help seek out new technology. He might not care at all that is does not work. News media will go to any story that sounds timely and garage inventions are commonly on the local news. Notice that in the case of the tech schools that not one of the 3 instructors has any physics background but they sure know what type of class to offer that might get full enrollment. Around here there are tons of "tech schools" that teach all sorts of class' for new and hot ideas for a nice fee of course. I think these instructors possibly have been duped themselves since they found their "technology" on the internet and are only teaching how to install it. Common sense would seem to dictate that if these devices really worked then they would be on every car around since business' would spring up everywhere to install these things on cars. Midas, Meineke, and even WalMart would want to get into installing them. The truth is that most folks are like my grandma - too embarrassed to admit she was taken in by a sales hype that seemed too good to be true so she just accepted her loss and said nothing. In doing that she participated in the scam unknowingly by being part of the "25,000 of them sold last year" or whatever number the promoter says they have sold of the latest "free energy" device. As for actual proof of mileage by testimonials - do you personally know the actual persons testifying and is the driving technique and conditions identical in both the "before" and "after". There are folks who can get astounding gas mileage from "normal" cars just by driving techniques. These are real though perhaps not recommended. Check out www.cleanmpg.com or search for "hypermiling" on google. Was any damage to the car or its operating system part of the equation? Did anybody look at the long term damage versus savings or affect on the maintenance of the vehicle?

I want better energy efficiency as bad as anyone reading this but don't toss away your common sense and believe what you want to believe just because you want it so bad. Simple short term fixes for serious problems have themselves become a problem. I fear those elected may themselves start to "chase rainbows" and try to legislate technology. That would be a disaster for our country.

I feel compelled to comment on what I see as scam technology. I don't ask you to agree with me but if you do get scammed by something you thought was a good idea - you will gain a lot of respect by coming here and reporting it - worts and all. The good news from my point of view is that there IS promising technolgy out there that works. A REAL breakthrough in batteries could change the whole picture but I think the Fuel Cell car is still the best answer to date. Your mileage may vary (pun intended).

I'm pretty convinced the folks at the college believe in what they're advocating, believe they're helping the public, and weren't intending to profit from it. But I'm still convinced it doesn't work.

Here's why I don't think it works. Injecting hydrogen into the intake would cause the O2 sensor to detect a richer exhaust and the engine control system would reduce the amount of gasoline injected relative to the amount of air to maintain a near "stochiometric" mixture. So far it sounds like it will save gasoline and it will if the hydrogen comes from a "free" source that doesn't require any gasoline to produce.

But if the hydrogen is produced on-board the vehicle then electrical energy is needed. That electricity is generated by the alternator which is powered by the engine. So the load on the engine goes up which requires more fuel. The alternator and engine have losses. The energy from the hygrogen will be less than the added load on the engine so additional gasoline will be needed which more than offsets the "savings" in gasoline due to the hydrogen richening the mixture. Gasoline consumption will go up.

What happened to cow magnets? Less expensive and easier to install

Will it work on a model T if you have a water pump?? Bud.

Please, Rather than repeating the points we made in June over and over, can we let this horrible thread die and get back to discussing Model Ts?

David, I apologize for my earlier wording. I didn't intend to sound so impolite. After a bad 10-hour night shift isn't the best time for me to be trying to reply to a thread.

Sorry
Ray

Royce, about a month ago myself, Nolen Renfro,Wally Shipley,David Riley and several other T guys watched Don Crader run a small 4 cycle single cylinder engine on a small hydrogen/oxygen generator. It ran for about a half hour before Don shut it down. you can ask your dad if these fellows are credable and honest. The process works, but will have to be improved to be used on a passenger vehicle, ie. safety container, heat problems and other considerations.

It is absolutely possible to run a spark ignition engine on hydrogen. No question about it. Been done many times. BMW has had cars with hydrogen powered engines at major autoshows for a number of years. It has a hydrogen storage tank and the hydrogen comes from a stationary source.

Hydrogen can also be generated from water by electrolysis. No question about it. A common high school chemistry demonstration.

There is one not so minor drawback to generating the hydrogen on-board from water by electrolysis. It requires more energy than is recovered when the hydrogen is burned in the engine. So if the electricity comes from an alternator powered by a gasoline engine more gasoline will be burned then if the hydrogen system wasn't used.

The good news about the current on-board hydrogen/electrolysis systems being promoted is they don't cost a lot and don't require any non-reversible alterations to the car. Also, I doubt they do any damage to the engine, particularly given the small amounts of hydrogen generated. Some folks really want to believe that they work irregardless of what accepted science says, and will continue to do so for at least a while.

As an automotive engineer and interested observer of people I do find the discussion about such systems facinating.

By Thomas J. Miller "Tom" on Monday, June 23, 2008 - 07:14 pm:

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Homer Simpson to Lisa Simpson when she demonstrates her perpetual motion machine.

The laws simplified:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't even break even.
3) You can't come close to breaking even.

It takes more energy to split water into its atomic components than you get back in heat when you burn it.

AC (alternators) and DC generators heat up when they generate electricity. This heat is lost energy.

Batteries heat up when they are charged. This again is lost energy.

Electrolysis of water causes the water solution to heat up in response to the applied current. This is because of current resistance. This is energy lost as heat.

There are tricks such as regenerative braking and other energy storage methods that allow you to utilize energy in a vehicle more efficiently. This is why the Escape Hybrid and the Prius are desireable cars. Every engine is subject to the laws of thermodynamics. It all boils down to heat or "one minus T sub L over T sub H".

And if you do burn hydrogen, brew a lot of it. A 3.0 four stroke engine operating at part throttle or 50 percent volumetric efficiency at a casual 1000 rpm still requires 750 liters of air/fuel per minute. (1.5l x 1000 rpm x every other rev is an intake)

It's wonderful to think that someone came up with a miracle engine, but this ain't it.

This is just a quick update. Tim is well into his trip, and on the first tank of gas is averaging 50 mpg keeping speeds around 65 and 70 mph. The car seems to be running very well. Many more miles to go and i will update occasionally for those that are interested.

Vince

Okey dokey. A 1982 Toyota Corrolla gets about 23 MPG when new. You are claiming more than a 100% increase in mileage. Yup, I'm convinced.

Just a bit off topic. Since all of the engineers are here. I had wondered about the idea of using gasoline in its vapor form similar to that of a propane grill. Would it help with efficiency? Just curious. Thanks.

I'm no engineer, but I always understood that the entire purpose of a carburetor is to vaporize gasoline. So what enters the cylinders is, in fact, what you are proposing - gasoline vapor and air.

I remember well a demonstration put on at my high school by a fellow from Exxon (it was ESSO then). He had a glass tube, about the size of a baseball bat, with a spark plug in its side approximately in the middle. One end was closed by a fixture like the old Mason jars - a wire bail that held the end cap on. The other had a rubber stopper that he jammed in.

He would open both ends and wave it around to purge it of any residual gas. Then he's cap the "back" end, and put a few drops of gasoline in the tube. He'd shove in the rubber plug, and wave the thing around to vaporize the gasoline. Then he'd touch a wire to the spark plug, and it would shoot the rubber plug the length of the gym, with a sound like a 12 guage.

Then he'd purge and cap it again, but this time put in half a cup of gasoline. Rubber plug, wave it around, and half the students would dive for the exits. When he touched the wire to the plug, nothing would happen. His explanation was there was so much gasoline vapor in the tube, there wasn't enough air (oxygen, really) to make an explosive mixture.

He'd also do the old trick of tossing a lit match into a bucket of gasoline. Nothing would happen.

What I took away from that demonstration was that in order to have a nice explosion in the cylinder of an engine, or anywhere else for that matter, you need the correct mixture of gasoline VAPOR, and oxygen, and a spark.

What the Hydrogen-on-demand lashup folks are telling us is that if you introduce a small amount of Hydrogen into the incoming air, which makes the mixture in the cylinder slightly more Hydrogen-heavy than regular air, it will burn the gasoline vapor more efficiently, therefore requiring somewhat less gasoline to move the automobile a given distance.

What I wonder is this: When you break water down with electricity, which is a common process, you get Oxygen as well as Hydrogen. What do they do with the Oxygen? I haven't seen any explanation for that!!! And, if they don't do anything with it but introduce it into the airstream along with the Hydrogen, then isn't it possible that it's the Oxygen that is in fact making the gasoline burn more efficiently?? Not that it matters - if the process works, it works.

I'm inclined to believe that it does work to some extent - and that's really all they are claiming. It's outsiders who claim a miracle, not them. All they say is that it increases your MPG somewhat. The car doesn't RUN on Hydrogen. It still runs on gasoline. Cars that RUN on Hydrogen use a fuel-cell to generate electricity, and that's an entirely different ball game.

I agree that the mason-jar demonstration they use is rudimentary, and not suitable for sale. It's a tinkerer's toy. But, so were computers not very many years ago. So were automobiles and airplanes, etc. etc.

My suspicion is that the real problem with making this system widely available is that the process is not patentable. That means that no large company wants to spend mega-bucks developing it into a safe, saleable unit that you can buy or have installed, only to see Ron Popiel advertising a knock-off on TV at night. If I'm right, it will remain a tinker-toy. Not that it won't work, of course!

Peter,

The real problem with this system is that it doesn't make hydrogen at all. It is a little container with 12 volts going to it filled with water. The wires are capable of carrying about 4 - 5 amps. We are talking about less than 100 watts. Thats not enough power to boil water, much lesss make hydrogen out of it. The whole thing is a really silly sham, with zero merit.

Royce

Royce, you might want to check on the chemistry of electrolysis. It has nothing to do with boiling or heat. Even a small current flowing through two electrodes submerged in water will form hydrogen around one electrode and aluminum around the other. One interesting fact, it doesn't work very well if the water is super-pure because there needs to be some ions of minerals or similar in the water to aid with conduction of electricity.

Correction to above: should be oxygen, not aluminum which is formed around the other electrode. Don't know where that came from.

David,

I think you meant oxygen, not aluminum. Yes, you are correct on all other points.

Seth

You're right - pure water isn't the best way to go. The explanation I saw added lye to the water, in small quantities. Why lye? I don't know. Chemically, almost any impurity would help the process, but you would have to think about what's left in the jar, and how to get rid of it safely, if the impurity doesn't break down as well.

As I said earlier, if this actually improved fuel economy it would be on every new car. And not being patented is more reason it would be every new car - no royalties would need to be paid. Manufactuers currently spend a lot of money for relatively small improvements in fuel economy for two reasons. First, there are the federal CAFE requirements which have to met or fines paid. And the CAFE requirements are getting a lot, lot tougher in the next ten years. Second, consumers are favoring vehicles with better fuel economy. Sales of small cars are up and large trucks are down. It takes a lot to believe that Toyota, Ford, GM, Chrysler and Nissan would not have added such an inexpensive system to their full size trucks to improve fuel economy and sales. Currently all have cut production of full size trucks.

So why do people see improvements in fuel economy with such gagets? Lots of explainations out there and most are probably valid at least part of the time. First one is a faulty analysis - what's reported is in itself true but doesn't correspond to the broader claim which is being made. Another is folks drive differently, either intentially or unintentially, knowing that they are checking the milage. Another is a tendency to believe the data which supports what you know must be true, and to find reasons to discard the data which doesn't support it. The different data can come out from lots of factors including errors in instrumentation, errors in math, errors in reading instrumentation, and outside factors which are not recognized or not properly factored in the analysis. There is also outright, intentional fraud though I suspect that is not so common. Sometimes when there is fraud it's because the perpertrator sincerely believes in his device which isn't quite working as he believes it can, and is under pressure to produce results. No reason for me to believe there is any intentional fraud from what I've seen of folks promoting the current hydrogen systems.

What's behind the belief in such systems? I don't know but have a few guesses.

Don't use table salt (sodium chloride) or chlorine gas will be produced also. According to Wikipedia, that is....

The advantage in hydrogen and oxygen (HHO) injection, if any, is improved combustion efficiency and the ability to burn a leaner mixture. As many people have stated, the HHO does not have any value as a fuel because it takes energy to make the HHO which adds additional drag on the engine.

To take full advantage of the HHO you must do additional changes to the engine including the MAP sensor. The advantage of a leaner mixture is more pronounced at idle and part throttle. Might be easier to sense improved combusion and the ability to burn a leaner mixture on a Model T where the carburator is driver adjustable.

52 mpg on the second tank yesterday. have not heard on any additional mileage figures yet.
Vince

Just heard from tim, the mpg pretty much leveled off at 52 mpg on this half of his trip. He said the longer it is energized the more hydrogen is produced possibly because the solution temp rises - not dangerously, but to about 130 degrees.

vince

Incredible results. If the same happens with all cars then for less than $100 per car our national energy problems are on the way to being solved.

May I quote someone from a earlyer thread to save typeing?
"Interesting that these "breakthroughs" come from instructors at technical colleges, not professors at universities or researchers at labs."

Duh,that is a no brainer sir.Instructors actually get thier hands dirty occasionaly,and teach others.While in the presence of others,they tend to learn more,work with students and see things from more than 1 perspective.Instead of going to college in 1956 and learning only 1 perspective out of a book some fellow who got his nails done while petting his poodle wrote.
Hobbiest actually do more inventing than engineers.Engineers just steal the ideas or buy them cheap and make minor improvements in the company of a lawyer and make millions.Read about Black and Decker and thier 10 buck bar tab that has made that company millions.


What gets me is the armchair engineers.The folkes who doubt this would work.Have any of ye actually went out to the shed or marble monument and got your hands dirty experimenting with it?
I dont have the chemistry knowledge to know 1 way or the other if it works or not.The net is here and I can read on it and learn if I want to.Allthough I do have a 2 year degree in Electronic Engineering I have forgotten alot of what I was taught or lost touch with the latest tech.Apple 2E's were the rage when I got my degree.:>0

I aint sitting here saying that I think this is a perfect idea or THE answer.We wont know for a while till it is tested and improved.
But the day will come when something better comes along and everybody that hollars "Snake Oil" before researching it is going to miss out.

Besides,if we want to make hydrogen,we can all use electrolis to derust parts,and find a way to compress it and use it.It is a free byproduct of that process.

May I quote someone from a earlyer thread to save typeing?
"Interesting that these "breakthroughs" come from instructors at technical colleges, not professors at universities or researchers at labs."

Duh,that is a no brainer sir.Instructors actually get thier hands dirty occasionaly,and teach others.While in the presence of others,they tend to learn more,work with students and see things from more than 1 perspective.Instead of going to college in 1956 and learning only 1 perspective out of a book some fellow who got his nails done while petting his poodle wrote.
Hobbiest actually do more inventing than engineers.Engineers just steal the ideas or buy them cheap and make minor improvements in the company of a lawyer and make millions.Read about Black and Decker and thier 10 buck bar tab that has made that company millions.


What gets me is the armchair engineers.The folkes who doubt this would work.Have any of ye actually went out to the shed or marble monument and got your hands dirty experimenting with it?
I dont have the chemistry knowledge to know 1 way or the other if it works or not.The net is here and I can read on it and learn if I want to.Allthough I do have a 2 year degree in Electronic Engineering I have forgotten alot of what I was taught or lost touch with the latest tech.Apple 2E's were the rage when I got my degree.:>0

I aint sitting here saying that I think this is a perfect idea or THE answer.We wont know for a while till it is tested and improved.
But the day will come when something better comes along and everybody that hollars "Snake Oil" before researching it is going to miss out.

Besides,if we want to make hydrogen,we can all use electrolis to derust parts,and find a way to compress it and use it.It is a free byproduct of that process.

Sorry for the double post folkes.Dang internet and phone company came out during the short time I was gone to get dinner and get some tires put on my truck and claims they cant find the trouble.I found it,marked it and explained it on a note.They took the note and left.
Dang donkeys.

Mack,

Few engineers are thieves, plenty of them are creative, plenty of them enjoy hands-on work, and not nearly as many as you think are wealthy.

Seth

Yes, this invention will certainly mean that we can cut our use of gasoline in half overnite. Oh jojous day!

I am laughing my A$$ off at anyone who believes this. Really.

Yes, this invention will certainly mean that we can cut our use of gasoline in half overnite. Oh joyous day!

I am laughing my A$$ off at anyone who believes this. Really.

Related to this discussion (I believe), is the assertion made by "knowledgeable" intelligent people, that it is aerodynamically impossible for the Bumblebee to fly.
Throughout history there have been the doubters and naysayers....at one time the "world" was thought to be flat.
More power to the tinkerers....where would we be without those bicycle shop fellows that tinkered with their machinery at Kitty Hawk?
Go For it!
Dave

Dave:

The "bumblebee" thing is a piece of American Folklore. No one ever "proved" or asserted that a bumblebee cannot fly. It is just a story that is passed around I guess to somehow make a point when discussing technical things. Not really sure. I have no quarrel with those who want to tinker and even if they want to spend money to tinker and even if they want to spend money to tinker with a "perpetual motion" device. My quarrel is with those who want to dupe innocent people out of their hard earned dollars by speaking all sorts of techno-babble as they prove that their "free energy" device really works in spite of all those egghead engineers who can easily prove it does not work. "Free energy" and "captured latent energy" and "power amplification" devices are all the new names for "perpetual motion" because by now most everyone knows that "perpetual motion" is not possible - well - at least most people know it.

I am busy having fun myself tonight. I came up with an additive that will make water flow uphill.

So what do you call the folks at the auto companies, the engine technology companies, research institutes and university labs who are out in labs getting their hands dirty trying to make engines and cars more efficient if they are not engineers or scientists?

The Wright Brothers studied pretty much everything which had been published on flight, were corresponding with at least one recognized expert, and did a series of deliberate, careful experiments. They built a wind tunnel and went through a very systematic series of tests of candidate airfoil shapes. They also built and tested a series of gliders before their first powered craft. Their major breakthough though was there control system which enabled the pilot to control roll. They didn't get everything right though and were passed by the competition within a few years. Then they resorted to legal attempts to stay on top commercially.

At some level one's view of on-board electrolysis as a fuel economy improver comes down to a matter of belief and faith. Do you believe good, engineering/scientific analysis; or do you have faith that the person tinkering essentially on their own can out smart the "system".

Mack,

Most engineers I know, myself included, get their hands dirty. So, if all we need to circumvent the laws of physics is dirty hands then our problems are over.

Well,I was allways under the impression that a engineer or scientist,is someone in a white lab coat or them fancy Docker pants scribbling something for a technicain or laborer to do. or trying to prove the sky aint blue with some fancy math.Someone with a big certificate on the wall basicly saying," I know so much I dont have to get dirty".Perhaps I need to google engineer.I dont mind admitting I could be wrong or under educated.Noone should be afraid to admit it.
But I will say I get that impression stated above from the fact that while I was getting muddy putting up roadsigns,and playing the video game "Frogger" in real life without a reset button.The "traffic engineers" were sitting in thier Caprices with the air on discussing the situation and writeing out work orders that I had to get interpreted because they wrote it in engineers jargon instead of just plain english.And alot of times I had to get info back to them explaining that what they wanted Wont work.And explain why.
I aggree it is wrong for anyone to make UNfounded claims and take uneducated gulliable peoples money.It is also wrong to spend your money gulliably to.If that is a word.Be a educated consumer.Know what your money is buying.


Royce,Laugh,because this particular invention probably wont save the world,I have my doubts to about it,but dang it,at some point someone will come hit the "right 1" as far as inventions go and folkes that cant or wont think out side the certificate frame will miss out.

Let me paint you a visual picture of my impression of this thread.

Ug the cave man is cold 1 winter day.He shivers in his bear skin and thinks about some bad weather and remembers seeing this bright flash of light that come from the heavens and light the woods on fire.It made things warm as it burned.He decided he was going to see if he could that. Earlyer in his life he had dropped a rock on a dinosaurs head and it bounced off,hitting a quartz rock and makeing this shiny thing we now call a spark.He compared this to the lightning he saw and decided they must be 1 and the same.
He did more studies,mentioned to his other caveman buddys and discussed it on the "rock o type" and 1 said go for it,1 said he was a idiot,the other said "11 Elks will come lay down for you to slaughter and feast on for many days :>) ,yea right you're a idiot!".
As the cold days dragged on,he watched a deer get struck by lightning,and it burned and smelled good.He sampled it and decided,"hey if this fire thing works,maby I can eat like this all the time."
He wacked rocks together many moons till 1 day he caught the pine needles outside his cave on fire.1 said "good job Ug! another said "UG you are a idiot,you didnt do that,the sky did it" the 3rd just stood in amazement as he had just watched Ug do something he thought was only fantasy.
Ug went on to realestate buying Ugly houses and lives in Florida.
There is some fellow out there that claims he made Fire first by rubbing 2 sticks together.Ug sued him and won.
That is this thread in essence.

U duh Man Mackdaddy!

http://www.magnetsource.com/Solutions_Pages/cowmags.html
I didnt know what a cow magnet was.So I used google.
http://www.cowmagnetscam.org/
Dang,there is actually a scam involveing Cow magnets.Until this thread,I had no idea what they were.
Hardware diesase.Never heard of it.I cant see barb wire tasteing good enough to eat,even with 4 bellys.And the first link says 1 magnet last the life of the cow!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm
Well I will attempt to stand corrected folkes.According to this link,some engineers do testing and so forth.in other words,doing something physical.
Most appear to be supervisory or useing mathmatices but some obviously do work..

BTW,thanks UG,anytime.

Excellent Mack, Just Plain Excellent!
Bob

Engineer is an overused term, both as a noun and a verb.

In the rest of the English speaking world an aircraft mechanic is called an engineer.

rdr

I don't have a dog in this fight but will add my opinion which is worth what you paid for it. I admire anyone that will put their pride and reputation on the line for what they believe in. It takes an intestinally challenged individual to "suffer the slings and arrows" of naysayers in order to bring unconventional change to our world. Royce I hate to say it but if you were around in 1908 we would be "putting" in buggy's today. My brother,an engineer, worked for five years on an impossible technology of the Stealth Bomber. I've had a fighter fly over my lake house...works as advertised. Oh but that can't be possible. Vince is selling nothing, he is simply reporting on a Tennessee Tech Collage experiment. This is a free country "so far"...buy the Ron Popiel version or make your own...or just enjoy your "safe zone". I am not smart enough as to the viability of this project but I know that constructive thought is a premium these days. I am glad to see people interested in finding a solution to our energy problems...should have started in the 70's.
Bob

I see the story more like this:

Ug buys map showing how to drive to Hawaii from California. It costs 100 clams.

Ug tells all his friends how he is saving lots of money on his vacation.

Ug drives into ocean and gets wet. He can't get there from here!

Ug tells all his friends how nice his Hawaiian vacation was.

The end.

Vince told us that Tim is getting 52 mpg on his trip. Unless he is drafting tractor-trailer rigs or he's driving at 45 mph instead of the 65-70 that he claims, he IS seeing a fuel economy improvement over an un-modified Corolla.

If the only thing that has been done to that car is the addition of the hydrogen injection, then it is indeed improving the thermal efficiency of the engine operation under those conditions. Even at 65-70 mph on the highway, a non-hybrid gasoline-powered automobile is running with lower than atmospheric pressure in the intake manifold and thermal efficiency is reduced because of it.

Perhaps the hydrogen/oxygen addition improves the thermal efficiency under those throttled conditions.

If it does increase the thermal efficiency, it also likely increases the emissions of oxides of nitrogen. Emission control solutions for this created problem may explain why such a device has not been fitted to a new car.

Seth

Well where Ug screwed up was lieing about his experiance.He should have told folkes,
"I cant get to those measly islands with over priced realestate and rusted out cars yet.A boat will be needed."In that case Ug was wrong.

But Royce there is good news!Royce,since your perkulator was made,there is something that came out called a MR. Coffee.A device that changed the way folkes made coffee.A technological break thru that some didnt like.
A wonderfull device that if you load the raw materials in it and push a button,you will have fresh coffee when you awake in the morning.Lack of coffee "caffine" ,can make you grumpy!
:>)

Royce,Do you still use a brace and bit? I bet Mr Black and Mr Decker were told they were idiots to by putting a motor on a drill bit.

I am begining to understand you a little better.You are similar to Henry himself.That could explain your knowledge of the T.Once the T came along and you were able to put your Shetland pony to pasture,you decided nothing better was needed,to which I can aggree the tech has went to far,so you never upgraded.:>)

Royce,there is nothing wrong with helping folkes understand there is a chance for deception,lies and ripoffs.Dont stop doing it.BUT at the same time,dont discourage people who think outside the "box".That is our future.We need ideas and we need them soon to continue to enjoy our country as it is now and not go any further down the toilet.

We had a similar discussion on another forumn I particapate on in regards to politics and the energy crunch.Everyone was talking down on the hybrids and other tech. And talking down the political situation our country is in,which is going to flush the toilet our country is in soon I am afraid.
But you know,I ask a couple questions and the naysayers and others quit commenting.And I will ask those questions again here.
What have you done as a citizen to better the situation? What would you suggjest to others do or try?
How would you fix the problems?
Getting real answers to those questions is a pain in the butt.Peoples fingers quit typeing all the sudden.
It shows me that this is a nation of grippers,doubters,and a few cheaters.The folkes that could change it are getting scared or lazy and we are headed down the tubes.

Mack,

There's no box to think outside of here. I am an avionics technician who uses electronics every day in my job maintaining a private jet. It is my job to understand things as they work electronically, mechanically, hydraulically and electrically. I have to understand what electricity does to keep the multi million dollar complex hydro mechanical device aimed in the proper direction and weightless. You have no idea how complicated and challenging this can be. I have new technology to deal with on a daily basis and I embrace it.

This device is an old gyppo trick that doesn't work. The electrical reasons it won't work are basic and simple to understand. I don't know why someone like Vince and his son who are apparently otherwise known to be nice folks would fall for this sort of hooey but they apparently have. It is sad that they choose to parade their foolishness here.

Several automotive engineers have pointed out the foolishness of the device in the posts above Mack. Please, don't fall for this. It is just sad to watch otherwise intelligent people get sucked into defending such stupidity.

Someone mentioned electrolysis moving hydrogen molecules from one electrode to another. It simply moves hydrogen molecules from the solution to the electrode. Not enough hydrogen to be easily measurable would be released from the little jar of water in this particular device, and this infinitessimally minute amount of hydrogen would not affect engine dynamics (or anything else) in any way.

Well thank you for addressing me in a respectable way allthough I had kinda poked fun at ye Royce..Some folkes would explode with crappy remarks.


I honestly aint defending this particular idea nessasaryly.In the best way I can,I am trying to defend those who experiment and try to work out problems.

Has fiber optics become part of aircraft yet?I know when I was at the technical college it was supposedly going to be the rage in cars shortly.of course that was in 1988.

Btw George, I forgot to ask,if the person who is getting 30 mpg walking eats several bowls of pinto beans cooked with ham hock,and hot corn bread and Vidalia onions,will this improve anything by generating methane gas?Jet propulsion?:>)

Just picking George!

Are they using fiber optics in cars now? My '02 Windstar cargo van doesn't seem to have any. It sure has a lot of convenience items that require wires, however.

Fiber optics saw their first use at Boeing in the 777, in the early 1990s. It's used there in a few non-essential systems, not essential or flight critical systems. I don't know how it's worked out, as my experience has been with older airliners since that time.

Boeing committed to wire wrap (like the phone companies used) for lots of connections in the first 747-400s in the late 1980s. After 25 planes they went back to crimped contacts for all subsequent planes, and ran the first ones back through the factory for retrofit. Yeh, that was expensive.

When you buy a plane for $140 Million and up, you expect it to be reliable.

As for hydrogen fuel, it would be neat in airplanes if it weren't pressurized, as the plane would weigh the less on takeoff, than on landing. Just that would save lots of fuel.

Maybe you've seen the tv news clip showing a guy in Florida making H2 from ocean water. The H2 is released by electrolysis, and they don't show the energy required for that step.

rdr

Interesting comment on wire wrap connections, RD. The organ I'm working on uses wire wrap connections, and with the old electro-pnuemantic controls, these connections were fine. The new solid state controls, however do NOT like these connections. Apparently the minor amount of resistance in them causes problems, sooo we are now soldering all these connections (well, they should have been anyways, but we were doing so much re-wiring we wanted to wait until we were finished with everything. Since the organ is in use every week, we aren't going to have that luxury.) We also found the old cotton-wrapped cabling, though it "rang out" fine somehow overloaded the ICs and we are having to replace much of that cabling!!
Seems every "new" technology causes "new" bugs!!
T'
David D.
PS Didn't mean to hijack this thread (oh, bad pun there too)

Mack,

The airplane I take care of uses fiber optic cables for the HF (high frequency) radio system. Two 3/32" diameter fiber optic cables replace a whole bundle of wires that on older aircraft would have run the length of the aircraft. Besides saving weight the fiber optic cables are not susceptible to emitting stray radio frequency (RF) power which is a huge problem in older HF systems.

Most large aircraft use a system of digital data buses for control and reporting systems for components these days. In these systems a single pair of wires will control a whole list of components, thereby saving weight and complexity. In a typical system the components all report to a pair of data acquisition units that each can report data or control the aircraft. The second data acquisition unit is simply a redundant component waiting to take control in the event of a failure.

These type systems operate the autopilot in virtually every brand of corporate jet or airliner. Typically these aircraft are on autopilot 1 minute after takeoff and stay on autopilot until 1 minute prior to landing. In the case of one of our aircraft it has an autoland system that is not disengaged until the pilot turns the autobraking system off by touching the pedals.

My most common problem to troubleshoot is a false report of a failure in redundancy

Ray,

I doan kno about that formula with the pinto beans....but.....

Let's meet down by the railroad tracks,over by Southeast Packaging... take a hike and work our way up to Landis...get good and hungry...great pulled pork place bar-b-que in Landis just past the railroad overpass!

That my friend carries infinite mpg in the aftermath on the way back down to where we started!!

My previous references to cow magnets were in regard to fuel economy. Cow magnets taped to the fuel line were responsible for major fuel economy gains in the 1970's and 1980's, or so the reports claimed. All sorts of explainations were offered with most based on some sort of molecular alignement in the fuel. For see:
http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1086498001
Someone even patented the idea:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4461262.html

A good discussion of fuel savings devices:
http://consumer.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,5426814_38710370_61424491,00.html

The US government has investigated scores of these devices. None were found to have any significant positive effect. Many actually hurt gas mileage. Click here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm

For some unknown reason, I actually had a cow magnet laying around many years ago. Just for kicks, I attached it to the fuel line of a 1980 Mercury Capri, (my car at the time), with an aircraft hose clamp. And you know what? It didn't do a damned thing. No, I never believed it would, but it was a handy place to store my cow magnet!

I have found that cement blocks help save gas.Jack the car up,place blocks under it,lower car on blocks.Hang keys on nail.Gas saved.:>)

Royce,it sounds like you work on Airforce 1!:>)

You know ,I recently had a chance to walk up to 1 of them airplanes.Alot of gauges,lights and stuff,Then I saw a Gm alternator hanging on the engine I am thinking" Well,at least they got 12 volts!"

Royce,

I dont have a son. Not sure who your are referring to?

vince

Vince, I was wondering where that came from as well.

(By the way, sons are cheaper than daughters when marriage time rolls around.... )

Dont remind me Dick. WIth my luck it will be two back to back!

Vince

When the time comes, talk to Anja and Elisabeth. They put together a really nice wedding for Elisabeth for a whole lot less than everyone probably thought it cost at the time.

Vince,

My apologies, I read your post:

"Tim will be driving a a 1982 toyota corolla from Paris Tenn. to Minneapolis Min. this week - a total of 1600 miles, with this system in place."

A similar post was on another forum that I frequent touting the same ridiculous story. In his story the person on the trip was alledgedly his son, who claimed that his Chevy Suburban was achieving (alledgedly) 25 miles per gallon while it normally was achieving 11 MPG before the gimmick device was installed.

With this story being perpetrated on virtually every auto related web site it is sometimes hard to recall who is who.

I apologize sincerely for confusing your story with his.

Royce

Royce,

No harm done. Please understand i am only passing on information that i find interesting. I do hope it works out for them, but i have no stake in it whatsoever.

Sincerely,

Vince

In regards to fiber optics in cars, the Lincoln Mark III had them standard in late 1968 to tell you if your tail lamps were functioning. That same car was also available with antilock brakes. Later fibber optics were used by several automakers in an effort to multiplex signals to remote receivers in the trunk. This has all been replaced by the Compact Area Network or CAN-BUS which uses twisted pairs to transmit signals.

Fiber not fibber. Sorry

The home made hydrogen power assist devices are pretty much fake and scams.

Perhaps this new one in west TN is related to another Dennis Lee scam. Lee is famous for fake devices to make electricity for years, has been in and out of courts countless of times. He still gets away with his scamming and is now off and running with the "PICC" device you mount to your car engine to run hydrogen...a bunch of crock.

Here is the Better Business Report from Middle TN on Dennis Lee and his DBA companies , check it out:

http://data.middletennessee.bbb.org/commonreport.html?bid=11101115

And this is the 'PICC" device that Dennis Lee created to burn hydrogen in your car, it's a crank device, a racket, scam and what ever you want to call this snake oil stuff.....

http://www.preignitioncc.com/woj/

Don't buy into it, there is now a pyamid scheme going with the PICCpyramid, a local architect who knew I mess with cars called me to put money into a distributorship on these PICC devices, he got caught up in this scam...like P.T. Barnum said...there's a sucker born every day!...


Bet Dennis Lee could't sell this old grump a PICC for his Model T.

Dan,

That's an even meaner part of this scam. They try to get you to buy 100 of these phony baloney devices so you can become a distributor. Then you stage these elaborate demonstrations and call all your friends telling them how your car has magically improved its gas mileage by 100%.

It is very sad. A lot of good people are being hurt because they just want to believe there is a gadget that will do this. People are all over the internet right now telling exactly the same story.

How about this "garage inventor" who has developed this cool new aeronautical device:

http://www.skyboardnz.com/

(watch the video)

Not exactly an average garage. A number of genuine engineers involved. Nothing which challenges current understanding of aerodynamics, etc. Overall a very clever and interesting idea. Have you seen the one of the fellow flying with a miniature jet engine?

Hi David, you are right,it is an application of knowns, but before the engineers were involved and before the first test flights it was still "knocked" as "not possible", "dumb idea", "will be too dangerous", "won't fly", "can't be controlled". I know the inventor and can vouch that he has had mountains to climb so far.....

The jet one is pretty cool too. Watch for him to fly the channel any time soon - hope he has absetos trousers though with all that exhaust out the back :-)
http://www.aviation.com/flying/080514-ap-rossy-jet-wing-flies.html

I sure am glad we did not have this forum when Henry was alive.

We might have really discouraged the guy when he said he wanted to build a car for $250 that would last 100 years. Guess we would not have had T's if that had happened.

Remember all great progress starts with great and challenging ideas. And no one knows everything there is to know, especially about things of the future.

All design teams need a benchmark to base their vision upon, even if the vision is far out there. Tom Stanzione is absolutely correct when he said if forums were around 100 years ago, old Henry might have turned tail

Put yourself in the shoes of Henry and his team back in their time..

Design protocol...

1- A motor carriage that uses a self developed engine that is cheap as cheap can be to produce.

2- Must be cabable of providing the same effective task of a horse but do so without getting slower as the day wears on...and do so without too much difference between 1, 2, 3 or 4 being aboard.

3- Be as comfortable as a good stout riding buggy, but do so with less suspension parts

4- Since petrol is as hard to come by as it presently is, design a storage tank that will get between 150-200 miles for those that follow our setting instructions...and for the doufusses that don't at least allow a tank to take them as far as a horse does before needing feeding.

5- water cooling is ok....benchmark a horse at the watering trough as far as refilling need...users will then not complain.

6- Since we eliminate the constant eyesore of horse dung with this new technology, and we eliminate unpredicted eruptions...it is ok for oil leaks to occur as long as the size of any individual leak under normal circumstances does not exceed the square area of a horse dollop in any given place.

7- Wherever possible, mechanisms are to be designed to generate noise of different pitches yet harmonious in total action. Horses grunt, horses whine, so this motorcar if quiet will confuse people. At least one mechanism must be designed to thrash about noisily, to remind the user that 'power' is at work.

8- For cheap parts, provide replacements that can be easily serviced by the user as a user is well aware of farrier costs involved with owning a horse. For more expensive parts continue to redefine the time between failures through design changes to eventually equal the working life of a horse.


None of the abouve is absurd for the time, only absurd in how I said it....and yes...who could have possibly thunk that 100 years later we would still be using technology of the decisions of that project.

Final results from Tim's trip - He averaged between 50 and 52 mpg. His wife drove home. Her driving style is more abrupt and jackrabbit. She averaged in the low 40's. A pretty big variance i think. Seems too big a variance to be driving style alone but i dont want to speculate. Hopefully i will learn more.

Vince

"Horses grunt, horses whine, " ,:>) that aint all they do,that is why we get "backfires" once in a while.:>)

I just wonder,if the T hadnt took off as it did, and the motor car didnt rise above the horse,mule,donkey and goat carts,would Peta be around?

Low '40s for pure highway driving in an '82 Corolla doesn't sound entirely unreasonable to me if it has a manual 5-speed transmission. Those were lightweight, slow cars by today's standards. 50 to 52 mpg is probably not entirely unreasonable for someone who is trying (conciously or not) to get the best mileage possible.

You know what really gets my goat is the fact when I was in high school I can remember folkes gettting these little Volkswagon Rabbits and rabbit pickups that were desiel straight drives,and they easly got 50 mpg.What happened? Technology aint got us very far since then has it? All the injection on those engines was mechanical and the engines did have some head gasket problems but geez,50mpg then? Why not now?
Computers and goverment emissions requirements would be my guess.

1 more thing,Royce mentioned above about damageing the catalytic convertor with these hydrogen devices.Hum,The "damage" allthough a malfunction,could indicate the convertor is clogging the system and may be affecting the gas mileage.Perhaps the leaner burning engine,is getting hotter and cooking out the convertor?
Someone chime in with some theorys.

Tom:

People like Henry Ford are not affected at all by opinions of others and it would have made no difference at all in his achieving his dream. It was mentioned above how "Henry and his team" might have been discouraged by forum comments. Henry was not a team player. He was in charge and made all decisions. He hated anything that was not under his complete control and he sought to bring everything "in house" as soon as he could but his production needs just prevented that for a long time. He hated the "money grubbers" since they had the money and could affect some control over him. He needed them but hated that and bought them all out as soon as he could. Henry was like every entrepreneur I have ever met - a huge ego that takes command and makes decisive decisions - right or wrong. We know only that in the beginning he made only right decisions. What about those entrepreneurs that made decisive but wrong decisions - we never hear of them because they fold up. Start up companies need this big ego in the beginning who does not need to consult with anyone - he just "runs things" but often if the company is successful, this same person is a real problem later when the company really needs to be more decentralized and flexible in order to grow further. Henry just about sank his own company. That too is not unusual. There are very few very large corporations that are founded and still run by their founders. Usually the founder at some point has to step aside or the company gets in trouble. The problem is that given the rules of business and the business climate in the U.S. it takes one type of very decisive person to START a company and grow it to a certain size but then it takes a totally different person to take it to the next level and rarely can a single person be both. Really creative genius type people could care less about anyones opinion of their idea if they are convinced it is a good one. They will chase their dream to the threshold of total ruin and beyond in their attempts to "make it work". They are NOT scam type people. They are dreamers and we need them. The scammers are the ones who impersonate the dreamers but they only dream of money and have no creative genius other than with words.

Mike Burke was one of the few exceptions that I knew in business who founded a company and lead it to huge numbers in sales. It took an act of total fraud (Enron) to hurt his company (Tellabs of Lisle, IL). I worked for Mike when he was director of engineering at Rockwell Wescom and he was a leader - not a commander. He took out a loan with his house and all he owned as collateral and founded his company with it. A huge risk but he had confidence in an idea and he was right. Everybody liked to work for him but he also was a no BS type CEO. He never thought he was better than any employee that worked for him at any level.

John:

I appreciate your comments and I believe in what you are saying. I have had the opportunity in my life to lead organizations and create upstarts in the face of naysayers who claimed that the ideas behind them were a farce and would never work. These comments and criticisms only strenghthening the resolve of the people involved to prove otherwise. Each time success and growth was found.

Most of these entities have lived on and grown beyond the initial success when other participants and many times the naysayers became convinced of the concepts, principles, products and people that created the success and moved in to take it to the next step.

All you say only reinforces my point that even these hydrogen based technologies, that some have scowled at in this thread, not only just might have something but likely, in the face of our current energy dilemna, will take a place in the future energy options made available to us that we will derive great benefit from.

I was being a bit sarcastic in my earlier comments about people being discouraged by folks who speak so strongly against new ideas. I really dont understand if their intent is to impress others with their self percieved knowledge or if more to discourage development of new ideas and concepts.

Technology and progress leading to a better quality of life for all of us has in many cases been carved out of seemingly impossible ideas where people have fought forward in the face of all the experts professing negative views.

It is of course easiest to fold and quit in view of negative opinions, however no true progress has ever been made by taking this route.

Given the urgent need for new solutions to old problems, it is always in our best interest to encourage those bold enough to dedicate themselves to developing new options through constructive support and critique of their work.

John, Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this matter. I too agree that Henry would likely have thumbed his nose at anyone on a forum who told him that his ideas were unachievable. I also agree that it takes many great minds to nurture and grow these ideas beyond the initial launch.

Hydrogen fuel cell technology represents a real, viable way to improve the range of electric energy powered vehicles. If we had a way to make electricity (and subsequntly hydrogen) cheaply and in great quantity it would solve many of our energy concerns.

Meanwhile, these fake "MMO Hydrogen" gyppo devices like the one Vince's buddy is trying to sell are a well known scam that has been around for about two years as of right now. It is a ripoff, not an invention.

The purveyors have insulated themselves from FTC investigation and fraud prosecution by hiding in fake corporations, post office boxes and web sites. Unlike Henry Ford, they are nameless and faceless because they don't have any technology at all.

Royce,

I have seen direct use of hydrogen in a recip engine operate very succesfully. I have also seen mobile production of hydrogen be done safely and in large enough quantities to be meaningful. What is lacking at this point is that next step of finding a viable way to integrate the two concepts in an economic fashion that the public consumer will accept.

I can only assume from your comments that you take issue with one specific advertised application or person and not the overall technological development. I hope I am right in this assumption.

I have been following this and have yet to see where anyone is selling anything, i have seen research results being posted but no sales information?
Rick

Tom,

Exactly. Hydrogen is in itself a easy to use way to power internal combustion engines. The problem being, hydrogen is incredibly difficult and expensive to produce and store. You don't go drill for hydrogen, you have to make it using vast amounts of electricity and natural gas.

There is no problem running cars on hydrogen. Every significant auto maker has already made a test car using our government's subsidies for that program. The car isn't the issue at all.

The issue here is that these bogus fraudulent devices, being hawked everywhere by people like Vince's buddy, are worthless and don't do what they say. There's a fellow with an office 100 yards from me who is a "distributor" for these MMO hydrogen accesories. You look at one and tell me what you see.

Click here:
http://motors.desc.shop.ebay.com/items/_W0QQ_fromZR46?_nkw=hydrogen&_nd1=&LH_Tit leDesc=1&_fromfsb=1&_trksid=m270

To attempt to add a little encouragement to those who say : ”it can’t be done” , and to encourage experimentation, and really not to beat a dead horse any longer, it’s important to note (IMHO) that there will always be a scam artist or two as long as we are free people to believe in what we want to believe.

Then too, there will be the “revolutionary developments” that change the way we live. Hard to know what will succeed or fail when these projects are in their infancy.

I recently attended a “seminar” in a little country town up here hosted by a local. Happened to be about this hydrogen project. Interesting headline, I thought : http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080820/FRONTPAGE/808200301 Frankly, I fully expected it to be a scam type sales pitch. To my utter surprise, it was not…it was a plain and simple : “Hey guys, this is what I did in my garage” – with parts and supplies from the local store. No sales pitch, no scam of any sort. In attendance were several folks who brought their own experiments…some cells made with PVC pipe, and the admonition to not use that…the heat generated by electrolysis deforms the PVC. The discoveries by a few folks that stainless steel is the best electrode, and not all stainless is created equal (some is simply plated metal). The electrode of choice was not stainless wire, but ordinary household electrical switch plates bought at the hardware store. Tubing was frequently the small “aquarium” type.
One difficulty encountered was the fact that the full electrical current from the battery frequently overheated the water…some folks use some sort of restricting device (I’m not an electrical person, and don’t know what it is…John R. - Seth, I seem to remember a Pulse Wave Monitor, or something like that…a device similar to a rheostat which can slow down the amount of electricity going to the electrodes.)

Things get “discovered” when people experiment. Yes, there are scams…but can we be careful and avoid the scams – not throw the baby out with the bathwater? Maybe something will become of this.

Royce, in the infant days of the passenger jet airplanes, there was the memorable “water wagon” – what was it, the Boeing -331? True, there was no electrolysis involved, just plain tap water injected into the combustion chamber to “thicken” the air/fuel mixture to produce more thrust during take-off. Also true was that the procedure is no longer used today, but it was one small development of the modern jet engine.

No, this shade tree mechanic project is not for everyone – no one device can be made that fits all autos…too many different computer programs in the cars. The “simpler” the car the better – pre ’95 is good – pre ’28 would seem to be ideal. Who knows….maybe these experiments will lead to something extraordinary! Nothing ventured, nothing gained…..just don’t fall for the hype!
Dave

Dave,

Again, we have a story about a guy with a mason jar and some wires hooked to it making great claims. Must have been a really slow news day. This guy didn't discover anything either. He lacks the one thing needed to make the story believable: independent test results from a neutral source.

Lets hear how your installation of a mason jar with wires hooks to it works. Then let someone who is able to do a repeatable test on a chassis dynamometer measure horsepower, emissions and brake specific fuel consumption in back to back tests on the vehicle with and without the device connected. This will cost about $100 but with you saving 50% on gas you should easily be able to afford it.

Royce

What John Regan has said is absolutely true...history has shown over and over that technology breakthroughs that change the course of society are driven by a single minded individual who is fixated on the concept, accepts no deterents, ignores the 'experts'. There is a story about the development of the incandescent light bulb...where Edison had 2000 failures before one actually 'worked'. When the new hero was interviewed after his success by the media, he was asked about the 2000 failures and what it must have done to his drive and determination. His response? He didn't have 2000 failures, he simply proved 2000 ways that would and could never work!

I'll share a story, something that may be alarming to some...but is also a true story. In rural China, there is a guy called "The windmill man" He is an American that more or less gave up trying to find acceptance of his concept here.

His windmills are not the wind sails we see in the current political adverts. No, go and watch Sky King or Roy Rogers, or Rin Tin Tin on cable. Those western ranch windmills that people of my generation use to replictate with Tinker Toys? Thats the design. He sells kits or drawings to the peasant farmers depending on what the farmer wants.

To the wind vane shaft, he generates single phase 220 through something he manufactures in China. I'm not sure whether he goes DC to AC, or straight AC to AC

Chinese farmers do not use too much electricity...a few lightbulbs, their cell phone charger, perhaps a dorm sized small refrigerator, and of course...their big screen TV and satellite dish. I don't know what that kilowatt load would be,but "The Windmill Man" deal, proven and approved by whatever government agency is the judge and jury...is that those who buy his services, with ministry loans if necessary, are not only then grid independent, but generate a surplus of a level being pumped back into the grid through their own meter that pays for the investment in short order, and provides the user with energy credits that can be sold to others or used during windless periods.

Sound far fetched? It's there!

Now, lets be absurd and go out of the box on what this thread is all about..........

Simple windmill sized for daily needs of transportation, a battery bank, an electrolysis unit, a storage tank for gas. Other than initial investment which could be more or less mostly home grown.....the only actual expense is the anodes and they could actually be junk. All of the rest could actually be figured out as to sizing etc once some brave soul actually goes and does it in working prototype. Once the concept is proven and understood, the real engineering side is simply scaling.

This does not address on board self generation, but does show a technology path for an alternative solution. Concerns about on board storage of hydrogen? There are solutions...even in a sledge hammer way...the Aussies have been running propane powered commercial vehicles and taxi's for some 20 years. In the taxi's the tanks are in the trunk of the conventional car, and I'm confident the Aussies have not engineered an automatic rear end collision avoidance system.

If we want to 'lead'... then we need to figure out how to think out of the box for solutions to the unknown. Everyone else in the world has already figured out what we design 'in the box' and can make it cheaper!

I don't know a Corolla from a Missybushy, but expect it has a downdraft or sidedraft carb. How do they move the hydrogen into the cyls without it rising up and away?

At least an old car has the advantage of an updraft carb so the H2 will not be lost so easily. It's the heavy gasoline vapor that is lost after shutdown in an updraft system.

rdr

Royce,

Below is a compiliation of your words from above with no commentary of my own. Kind of scary dont you think? Why would anyone want to attempt an intelligent conversation with someone who speaks as such? I hope this will be as difficult for you to read as it was for me and other recipients of such an articulation.

Vince
-----------------------
your words..

"What a load of bull. These crooks come out of the wood work when ever there is a panic situation that makes people suspend their disbelief.I've read it. Same BS, different day. Trolling for suckers.Reports from other users on these type products are written by the same hack who is selling the stuff.That's a crock of poo.People don't like to admit it when they've made a stupid mistake. Your friend with the Toyota pickup has been duped by the criminally stupid inventers of this bogus device.This scam has been exposed as fraud for a couple years now. Your business model is to sell fraudulent devices that don't work to people who don't want them and know you are a crook. Good luck with that. Quit wasting our time.Ok, then Vince is only guilty of spreading information about fraudulent devices and wasting our time.I am sorry he and his son have been chumped by a crook.If Vince has the right to speak on our forum about fraudulent products then I have the right to call his fraud for what it is. there are perhaps ten thousand advertisements right now for these retarded "hydrogen" gas mileage enhancers.The poor dummies who buy them are getting disappointed and (in some cases) damaging their cars.The whole thing is a really silly sham, with zero merit. Oh jojous day!
I am laughing my A$$ off at anyone who believes this. Really.This device is an old gyppo trick that doesn't work.I don't know why someone like Vince and his son who are apparently otherwise known to be nice folks would fall for this sort of hooey but they apparently have. It is sad that they choose to parade their foolishness here.It is just sad to watch otherwise intelligent people get sucked into defending such stupidity.Meanwhile, these fake "MMO Hydrogen" gyppo devices like the one Vince's buddy is trying to sell are a well known scam that has been around for about two years as of right now. It is a ripoff, not an invention. The purveyors have insulated themselves from FTC investigation and fraud prosecution by hiding in fake corporations, post office boxes and web sites. Unlike Henry Ford, they are nameless and faceless because they don't have any technology at all.The issue here is that these bogus fraudulent devices, being hawked everywhere by people like Vince's buddy, are worthless and don't do what they say."

-------------------------

Vince,

Please explain why you are telling us about this fraudulent device on behalf of your buddy? This is a Model T Ford Forum group. We are a community of people with a similar interest in antique cars. I have seen the devices you are hawking for your friend. It costs me nothing to warn others in our community about the scam.

There is no credibility in a story that hydrogen can be produced by means of water in a jar connected to your car's battery.

My words are informed and truthful and I stand by them.

I have one correction - i listed the car incorrectly. It was a 2002, not a 1982. My bad.


Vince

Vince, please explain how the H2 gets into the cylinders in that 02 Corolla, without puddling in the top of the intake system.

rdr

Anyone want to talk poiltics?

Shure,But like when your driving the old T past a hog farm and you notice it picking up speed-Thats Methane!!! Shure these thoughts/schemes come and go but do any think Henrys friend TA Edison while the father of the light bulb was proably Modern Usable Electricity's worst enemy?? Soon to be gone Bud.

Gentlemen, consider this.


5 Kg of hydrogen has the same energy content as 40 litres of gasoline. That's near enough 10 gallons. 500g of hydrogen is equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline.

We take a car which runs at 60mph and does 20mpg. It burns 1 gallon of gas in 20 minutes.

The same car would travel the same distance, at the same speed, on 500g of hydrogen.

But here's the rub. 500g of hydrogen takes up a lot of space. 5.5 cubic metres, in fact.

So we're using 5500 litres in 20 minutes. Or 275 litres per mile.

You can buy a hydrogen generator kit on eBay for $365. It produces up to 1.5 litres per minute. In 20 minutes running, the time it takes you to burn 1 gallon of gasoline, it's produced just 30 litres. (We'll ignore the fact that it's also pulling 40 amps from your alternator all this time, which doesn't come free.)

You've driven 20 miles on gas. How much further will the hydrogen take you?

30/275ths of a mile.

Under 200 yards.



Further reading: http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19125621.200

Comment:
"But like when your driving the old T past a hog farm and you notice it picking up speed-Thats Methane!!!"

Or its could be the extra gas when you speed up to get away from the "methane" :-)

OK...mad scientist time....

Thanks for the facts Bibendum.....but.......if you compress the living crap out of the hydrogen for tank storage...isn't there an old rule somewhere that says that pressure is proportional to 1/volume? So, compress it to a huge number of pressure and the volume required shrinks just as fast in the other direction?

Not snipping..actually for some reason enjoying all of the dialog on this thread

Water injection has been around a long time. GM used it (actually a water alchohol mix to prevent freezing) in the first production turbocharged cars, Covairs and Buick Specials, in the early '60s. Generally used to reduce combustion chamber temperatures. Downside is the need to refill the water or water/alcohol mix.

I assume that's why it has also been used on jet engines - to control the gas temperatures in the gas engine so thrust can be increased for take-off.

"Royce, in the infant days of the passenger jet airplanes, there was the memorable “water wagon” – what was it, the Boeing -331? True, there was no electrolysis involved, just plain tap water injected into the combustion chamber to “thicken” the air/fuel mixture to produce more thrust during take-off. Also true was that the procedure is no longer used today, but it was one small development of the modern jet engine."

The interesting part George is just how high that pressure factor has to be to compress hyrodgen to get a useful volume. You end up with a bomb basically.
A hydrogen powered city bus project I know of has come to screeching halt as no insurance company could be found to cover the risk of the tank exploding based on the amazing high pressures and dangers of carrying this "bomb" around on todays accident prone roads.....

Not a case of technology now, but risk management.

"hydrogen based technologies"

There is a huge difference between the fuel cell Equinox which Jay Leno is currently test driving or even the BMW hydrogen powered IC engine test cars, and dumping a little bit of hydrogen generated by electrolysis into the intake manifold of a modern car's IC engine.

The current claims (other than those of the scam artists) for the electrolysis units appear to be rooted on faith, not objective evidence from a neutral party. And that faith is understandable given the pain caused by current energy prices and the seeming potential for such devices. Unfortunately basic physics don't support the claims. The physics might be wrong, but so could the claims.

Locations where propane is used as a motor vehicle fuel there are significant tax incentives for using propane, regulations requiring it's use, and/or concerns about air quality. Frequently the tax incentives and regulations are limited to certain classes of vehicles such as taxi. Many fork lifts used in the US run on propane including the one at our local lumberyard. Cummins and/or Caterpillar sell propoane versions of the their engines which are frequently used in buses.

The disadvantage of propane is the size of the fuel tanks for an equivalent range compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. I also understand that when tax differences are eliminated the cost of propane for a given amount of energy is about the same as or slightly greater than gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.

CNG is a more recent technology which has considerable promise for selected applications. CNG powered vehicles are commercially available. Price of the tanks is a drawback though.

Tom, my intent is some intelligent conversation about various ideas. I have some knowledge of vehicle engineering which I'm glad to share. I'm always glad to see new ideas. Your comment is off-base.

"I was being a bit sarcastic in my earlier comments about people being discouraged by folks who speak so strongly against new ideas. I really dont understand if their intent is to impress others with their self percieved knowledge or if more to discourage development of new ideas and concepts."

CNG was widely used in new Zealand in late 70's and 1980s. has practically vanished from the market now, but a few supply depots exist still.

Main problem - burned out engines (converted petrol), short range (can't get much in the tanks) and poor power (again - in converted petrol engines) - not to mention problems finding a refueling station, but this was offset by having a "dual fuel" set up where you switched to petrol when you ran out of CNG.

Much more poular and longer lasting was LPG (basically type of propane I think). problems: burned out engines (converted petrol) as it burns so dry and hot, range better than CNG, power better than CNG - not much less than petrol. Most systems are dual fuel as well, so you switch to petrol if you can't find a refueling station.

Technology used was mostly from Italy I think.

Quite a few buses and taxis use LPG.

Few (I can't recall any) safety problems with CNG or LPG tanks in accidents. Quite robustly built.

Cheers
Adrian

Well I had a brain storm last night.If you could call it that.Perhaps brain -art.
I think I am going to start selling a kit at the local flea market.
Consisting of a bag of pinto beans,a piece of medical oxygen hose,a needle with hose end on it to prick the air cleaner hose on your car.eat beans 4 to 6 hours before driveing.Improve mileage and air quality inside your vehical at the same time.
I wonder if 29.99 is reasonable?I bet if I git Billy Mayes to sell it for me,it would go like stink :>)!


This is a joke.Please understand that I have technical support for this theory at this time.Allthough thru reliable sources I have learned natural methane is flamable.

Mack, I think you are on to something. Just think what you could do if you had a couple of your buddies riding along after a nite of drinking Iron City beer and eating chili.
Maybe you can train a couple of hogs to ride in the trunk and contribute their explosive talent.
Of course your mileage may vary according to the talent involved either in the trunk or in the back seat.

Missed you at Richmond, saw some of the other guys from here. Are you ready to go back ?? Had a great time,was over to quick.

I've used an LPG set up on a 55,000 watt generator here at my nursery for 32 years. It has the equivalent running time of a similiar auto/truck that has run 220,000 miles and it still runs like a top and starts every time with in a second. The engine is an in line 6 cylinder White/Hercules and the only adaptation from a gasoline engine is the fuel solenoid and different carburetor. Not one problem with the engine part of the set up in 32 years so for stationary power plants LPG is fine. For moving vehicles maybe not as handy.....Michael Pawelek

Hogs or chili eating buddies haven't been used much yet, but there are lot's of projects where methane from cow dung is cleaned, compressed & used for electricity production or fuel for buses, most of them in Germany.
High investment costs, but renewable for a future with less of easily accessed fossil fuels.
http://www.emilysetzer.com/farmers-seek-slice-of-cow-pie.html

Well I just relized,I will have to pull my idea from the market place until further studies have been conducted.It seems that Audi had problems with "unintended forward acceleration".this caused accidents.
I am afraid until controls can be implemented that my idea could cause a safty hazard.Such as running a stop light or speeding thru neighborhoods at a erractic rate.
Oh well it was a thought.:>)

Mack,keep working on your idea. It's as plausable as the other ideas. Any leaks in the system will keep the undesirables out of your car.(G)

I suspect the ratio is near the same for LPG, but CNG at 3600 psi takes up four to five times the space of a Gallon Gas Equivalent. And, it can't be freeform like the tank under a modern car, but cylindrical.

LPG is a popular conversion for the XJ-6 in England, in spite of the tank taking most of the trunk.

Full size vans and pickups, and larger, can benefit from CNG or LPG conversion, as there's usually room for long, skinny cylindrical tanks between the frame rails.

rdr

This thread most definitely has to hold the record for the longest-running, non-T thread on the forum...so I'm gonna throw in some food for thought.

When I was 15 I was given a bit of information from an 80+ year old fella (who incidentally was referred to as "crazy" by most folks around here) that I used, for a science fair project, and built (threw together) a very simple contraption that generated measurable and usable current using simple hardware store stuff that cost about $5. Ya know what? It didn't use a consumable energy source to do it, and the generated current wasn't needed to run the rig...it was a by-product. It ran on its own, would have done so forever had I not taken it apart. You anti-perpetual-motion fellas can scoff if you like, but that is what it was and it worked. If a 15-year-old kid can do it (guided by an old eccentric hermit), I can't figure out why these over-educated eggheads in white coats can't stop thinking high-tech and perfect the idea.

Galen (the old fella who told me what to do) spent his youth watching Nathan Stubblefield do things with induction and current-generating devices. If you don't know who Stubblefield was, Google him and you'll learn why my hometown proudly calls itself the "Birthplace of Radio". Galen was an odd old man, with white hair halfway down to his waist, but he never told me anything that I could disprove. He had lots of stories and recollections of things that Stubblefield did (many that I have forgotten or dismissed at the time as rambling because I didn't understand what he was saying), but the one thing he told me that I'll never forget is "never overlook the most simple things." He was an uneducated hermit, yet he knew things and could do things that most folks couldn't. Why? Because he always thought simply. Too many of our "best" engineers these days are trained to think complicated, and that is why, I feel, is why our energy situation is where it is. We're lost without our old-school thinkers.

For what its worth, the science fair project never got to the science fair because "perpetual motion" devices were not admissable. There have been so many thousand crackpots who used that terminology to describe totally ridiculous ideas that my (Galen's) device that "generated current through motion created without consuming energy" was grouped with them. Galen was right when he told me they wouldn't listen. He'd been there and done that before.

I have nothing against someone who chooses to learn from books and the mouths of others and receive a piece of paper to hang on the wall to show their accomplishments, but I do take offense when those folks point to that piece of paper and claim superiority to the Galens and Nathans in the world.

Mack, Don't quit now. Those Germans could't figure out that if one guy faces front and the other rides backwards they will balance each other out.
Just make sure that the guy with the most flatulence {gas] is not riding backwards or you may not have enough other power to overcome him.

When I was in Germany I saw a couple of cars that were converted to run on wood gas during the war. One was a model A and the other a Opel.
Also a truck that ran on methane. These are in a couple of museums.
Just as a point of interest one museum is a private owned and has one of every model corvette ever made. They have come over here and bought them used, some still have the original state plates still on them. None are restored, right off the street or used car lot.

There are several blaugaz (wood smoke gas) German cars on display in the basement auto collection of the Deutsches museum (their version of a Smithsonian) in Munich. I went there in 2002 and it was very interesting. Basically you had to burn a cord of firewood to go 10 - 15 miles. It was very innefective, smoky, and the car ran badly due to the very low octane. The apparatus was fairly simple to construct but clumsy and huge.

It was a last ditch effort to be able to use your personal car that was an utter failure by the accounts of the placards at the museum. In effect, you could drive your car if you had access to a forest and an axe. The car so eqipped had perhaps 25% of its power on gasoline and very limited range dependent on how much firewood you could carry.

The German blaugaz experiment was real though, unlike all those fake hydrogen MMO devices.

It ran on its own, would have done so forever had I not taken it apart. You anti-perpetual-motion fellas can scoff if you like, but that is what it was and it worked. If a 15-year-old kid can do it (guided by an old eccentric hermit), I can't figure out why these over-educated eggheads in white coats can't stop thinking high-tech and perfect the idea.

Silly question, perhaps, but why don't you build another one? Build it and , within a week, you will be the wealthiest man on earth. Simple

This egghead believes that there ain't no free lunches and that energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Some lunches are cheaper than others but none of them are free.

Energy does move around between different states - heat, kinetic energy, potential energy due to gravity, elastic deformation, etc, chemical bonds such as in batteries, and so forth.

Not accounting for all the different states of energy easily leads to the erroneous conclusion that energy is being created. More than one reputable trained, qualified scientist/engineer with the best of intentions has been tripped up by this.

When hydrogen and oxygen combine, usually by burning, to create water, heat energy is liberated. This energy represents the difference between the bond energy of distinct hydrogen H2 molecules and oxygen O2 molecules, and water H2O molecules. Likewise when water molecules (not atoms) are split using electrolysis electrical energy is converted into molecular bond energy in the resulting H2 and O2 molecules.

Energy can be created or destroyed in nuclear reactions (E=MC2), but only in nuclear reactions. Nuclear reactions don't occur in garages, basements or under the hood of a car.

My daughter built a solar powered car in the sixth grade for a science project, it had a small DC motor connected directly to a wheel and a small solar cell, it would go around in circles endlessly , when it got dark a small light came on and it went round and round, the boys loved it.Its still around here somewhere in a box.
Rick

David, I agree with the above. Energy isn't even created in nuclear fusion or fission. The energy released is the result of the conversion of the mass of the atom (M) into a smaller atom with less mass, or with fusion, the combination of 2 atoms into 1 atom with a total mass that is less than the sum of the 2 original atoms. The splitting off of electrons, protons, and neutrons is what yields the energy as their bonds are broken.
Noel

Well,I reckon what troubles me about "energy avaliablity" in general is the fact that alot of rivers and streams run thru this country.Not all folkes could use them,but I am yet to see a pump pushing water down Rocky River.Unless some body has been paying the moon to use it's gravity to move the rivers and oceans,that motions free.
Cheap energy on a small scale though as a squirll cage fan blade works well as a water wheel.Something bigger may cost some dough.
I am yet to find that big fan that blows the wind accross much of the country at a slow,lazy pace.But yet it blows and I aint payed a dime for it.But the windmills that can produce useable power to charge batterys are exspensive.


You know,I still aint found the big generator that runs that big bulb in the sky.
But solar panals are exspensive.

So There is free energy persay,It just aint free to harness.Perhaps that is a area that garage techys could work in.
A battery powered car,charged by any of the 3 "freebies" would be alot "greener" than 1 charged by a nuclear plant.Just check out Chernoble on the net sometime.That kinda sours my tummy in regards to nuke stuff.

I have been wanting a Citicar for years and found 1 not long ago but never could get up with the owner to see about buying it.

About the wood gas.Could it be created and compressed?

Mack,

There are usually a few Citicars on Ebay. Basically a golf cart. Don't see any today, but you can use this link to check if you want:
http://motors.shop.ebay.com/items/Cars-Trucks___other-makes_W0QQ_nkwZotherQ20mak esQQQ5ftrksidZp4506Q2ec0Q2em1QQQ5fcatrefZ1?_trksid=p4506.c0.m1

Wood gas can be compressed, but it takes a forest of trees to equal a tank of gasoline. You would use more gas to power the chain saw than the equivalent power you would get from the wood. Then the wood is all gone, and you don't have it any more. Its not a source of power that makes sense for cars. The Germans proved that.

"Silly question, perhaps, but why don't you build another one? Build it and , within a week, you will be the wealthiest man on earth. Simple"

If only that statement were true. No sir, the wealth would end up in the pocket of the most dishonest person with the most crooked lawyers. Patents are a joke, and the only thing you get with a patent anymore is the right to sue anyone and everyone that copies your idea. As with perpetual motion and energy, it takes more money to fight a crooked system than can be made with the idea. Even though the possibility of endless profit is there, the certainty of infinite court battles to protect our ideas are there as well. I don't have the patience, legal knowledge, willingness to shell out potential $$$millions to leeches (lawyers), or confidence in our system to believe that the side of right always wins. Our government's patent system "protects" us by allowing us to pay lawyers to do what shouldn't need doing in the first place. In a world full of honest people, your statement would be true.

Seth, I agree that energy is neither created or destroyed but rather released or converted to something usable. My little toy did not create energy, so maybe I should re-word the statement; It "borrowed" readily-available and inexpensive stored energy (without consuming it), converted it to kinetic energy which in turn passed magnets by a coil to generate current. It was "perpetual" only in that it did not need a constant repleneshing of its energy source to keep going. It did not consume energy, but rather used available energy. It was not a "perpetual motion" device by the most popular definition, "any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes". I'm not going to make that claim. Although it did not "consume" anything, it still needed an energy source to draw from. It did not create the energy that it needed to operate though. Cryptic? Yes, but that is all I'll share in an open forum

My toy wasn't a "perpetual-motion" device, as anyone with any understanding of physics will agree with and accept the fact that it is not possible to generate more energy than is consumed. Either the the law of conservation of energy or one of the two laws of thermodynamics will shoot it down. What I meant to say by the comment concerning perpetual-motion naysayers (I too fit that category in its true context) is this; just because a device is moving and producing current without generating heat or using a finite energy source does not necessarily mean it is an example of perpetual-motion. My experiment was incorrectly labeled and written off as a perpetual-motion device because there was no smoke, noise, or heat generated, and I was too young and ignorant at the time to explain it to a closed-minded teacher who only knew what he had read in a book or heard second-hand in a college classroom. I'm thankful now that he did not understand it. If he had, he would be profiting from it, or more likely be up to his eyeballs in debt to lawyers trying to keep a crooked corporation or the Chinese from stealing the idea.

For what its worth, my mind is constantly tossing the idea around to build another one. I understand a lot more now than I did at 15, not to mention have the means and ability to machine the parts needed. The original was made mostly of wood and cardboard from Galen's pencil sketch on a paper sack. The coils were very basic, made with fine copper wire harvested from a scrap transistor radio. I lay awake near every night thinking about whether it really could accomplish more than it did in the primitive form, which amounted to a few hundred RPM generating a couple volts on an analog meter. What I find most interesting is the current-generating side of it was not Galen's idea; it was "borrowed" from the Model T (he had several). Yep, although I didn't realize if until many years later...same basic principal as the T mag

We seem to be getting different ideas about this. Early on in the thread, I thought the idea was to use the output (hydrogen & oxygen) as a supplement to the "regular" (i.e. gasoline or petrol) fuel to produce more power for the quantity of gasoline consumed, much the same way oxygen is added to the oxy/acetylene torch to make it burn hotter. Surely, there are numerous other instances of "agents" being used to hasten a process that would eventually occur over a much longer time frame....dryers added to paint to get it to dry quicker, etc.

The thread has evolved into the merits a a "pure" hydrogen powered vehicle...was that the intent of these backyard experiments? From all the literature and videos (U Tube has numerous clips), it really seems plausible that gasoline consumption can be reduced when it is burned in an "enriched" atmosphere. The Model T is the best internal combustion engine to experiment on - simple machine, no PCV, EGR, and numerous other valves..no computers...simple sucking carb....crops grow greener and faster with a little fertilizer. Why won't the Model T burn gas more efficiently (get better gas mileage) when the combustion chamber atmosphere has been fertilized with extra hydrogen and oxygen? Ray's Galen said "never overlook the most simple things".
Dave

Dave,

The problem with your usage of word "plausible" implies that these bogus HHO devices produce hydrogen or somehow exrtact hydrogen from water. They don't. Since they are lying to you about that, then everything they say afterwards cannot be believed.

What about the hydrogen car I saw at the Centennial? I see it is marked 999 I wonder if they have another one called the Arrow? I can't remember what was on the explanation with the car. Can anyone relay the story of this hydrogen car?
Herb

Now that we find out the Corrola is a 2002 I too have lost interest.
In 2006 I drove my wife's 2001 Corolla from Oakland to Colorado Springs, up Pikes Peak and back to Ca. with 3 of us in it, air conditioner on maybe 25% of the time and drove it the speed limit and slightly over most of the time.
This car is an automatic withoverdrive and cruise control.
I got an overall average of 37.6 MPG on the lowest price regular gas I could find without going out of my way.
Now if I drove a similar 5 speed car 55 MPH with 2 people in it, leave the A.C. off, and realy put my mind to it I'm sure I could get 40 + MPG - maybe more.
Last rear Corollas got better millage than any other car.... including smaller cars. Must be the gear ratio.
I have a book on how to make a hydrogen generator and put it to use.
After reading through several times I am NOT INTERESTED not interested.

Royce,
I don't know about "bogus HHO devices", or any assembled hydrogen generator for sale - on the internet, or elsewhers. All I know is what I saw in town hall,and the parking lot...common household items (or common hardware store items assembled at home), DC current applied, and tap water (although steam distilled water is recommended) somehow (electrolysis ?) releases a combustible gas which has been reported to be hydrogen and oxygen. No, I did not test it, but others in attendance claimed to have attempted to light it, and it blew up the container! Hey, some people knit, others play golf. Some play tennis or arrange rodel train layouts. A few folks out there are apparently finding ways to more efficiently burn gasoline.

I hope to live long enough to conduct my own experiments - right now, I have 15 + years of projects to complete. I'm hopeful that some more energetic person will improve on the present devices.
Dave

Dave,

Exactly. You witnessed someone explaining something that does not and cannot produce anything except steam, or perhaps warm water. A few folks there were evidently gullible enough to believe it. If you believe it, you are mistaken.

Royce

http://consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/07/water4gas.html

Oh, darn, you go and spoil it with facts, Ozzie. I was growing fond of this thread...

Royce, now come one. I respect your opinion knowledge and can't remember a time when you made a statement that you couldn't back up. I agree with your position that using these devices aren't going to do much to improve gas mileage, but I know you must know better than to believe that DC current passed through an ionic solution DOES produce hydrogen and oxygen and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to do it. Its one thing to speak your opinion on the usefulness of the process to run a vehicle, but you are making a false statement (that can be very easily disproved) to say that nothing more than warm water and steam are produced. The product of electrolysis WILL blow if ignited. It seldom occurs when the process is used to clean parts as the hydrogen is lighter than air and doesn't accumulate like some other flammables do, but put a lid over it for a bit and light it.

I know you must have not meant that quite the way it came across though, as you seem a bit more knowlegdeable than that

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm
There is a segment of this long and boreing artical about useing hydrogen to smelt Iron.My attention span aint long enough at this time of the morning to read it all.

Ricks,

Dont worry too much, Obama will talk us out of the problem better......

Royce: Why are you convinced a simple electrolysis cell won't produce hydrogen? It's a standard chemistry class type experiment. Unless the voltage/current is cranked up high enough that the water is heated to the boiling point no steam is produced. Hydrogen and oxygen are produced because the electric current causes hydgrogen ions to collect around one electrode and oxygen ions around the other.

Herb: Why do you refer to 999 and Arrow as hydrogen cars? Do you mean the race cars Henry Ford built over a hundred years ago? If so I'm virtually certain they ran on what was called "gasoline" at that time.

David,

In tap water or deionized water with 12 volts there is going to be such a lack of current flow that any effect at all is going to be very insignificant.

Ray, nothing flamable would happen in these devices. There is no measurable hydrogen coming out of such a device. It's a hoax, plain and simple.

They are playing it a thousand different ways. Some guys are selling instruction kits to build your own system. Some guys are selling a sales pitch kit so you can be the target of an FTC investigation yourself. Some people are selling parts. Others sell whole kits, or distributorships. There are a whole slew of crooks playing the same silly game. Who knows what the next variation will be.

Okay Royce, I guess you were talking about the distilled-water rigs, and I agree 100% with you. Without the solution ionized, it's useless.

We use ionized water for electrolysis (and produce hydrogen) for the exact opposite reason we use distilled water in a battery. Suspended minerals in tap water will conduct current, where distilled water won't.

Out here in dry country, insulators on high power lines get dusty, and then arc over when the weather is damp, like foggy. You can hear the buzzing.

They clean the insulators with a high pressure stream from a pumper truck. It's quite a sight. Yup, they use distilled water.

rdr

Royce,
The shade tree mechanics up here suggest using steam distilled water to eliminate the minerals that come with most well water, but I forgot to say that they add 1/4 to 1/2 tsp of baking soda (or is it baking powder ?) per cup of water to allow the hydrogen & oxygen to be released when current is applied. Sorry for the omission.
Dave
P.S. the vapors - whatever they are, are explosive!

Royce, baking soda, lye, acid or some other suitable agent is added so the water is conductive. Do you agree or disagree that with such an agent present hydrogen and oxygen can be generated from water by electrolysis. (2) H2O > H2 + (2) O2 The agent isn't consumed, so by adding additional water additional hydrogen and oxygen can be generated, while consuming more electric power.

Now whether the hydrogen system does anything to improve fuel economy once all the energy consumed is accounted for is a different question. I'm extremley skeptical that any such system provides a net positive benefit of increasing the fuel economy of a car if the car provides the electricity.

And a lot, if not most, of the folks promoting such schemes are surely in it for the money. But I suspect there are more than a few folks who are hoping this is the solution to the "energy crisis" and not looking to profit personally.

Personally, I would use cow magnets. They're less expensive, easier to add, and probably result in higher fuel economy (since the losses would be less). IMPORTANT: I'm not claiming cow magnets will do anything to improve fuel economy.

David,

We are going around in circles. I submit to you that in the methods described in the systems I have examined no significant hydrogen would be available for burning. The instructions I have seen say that the little jar of water lasts hundreds of miles, so little if any hydrogen or oxygen is being consumed or released. You don't get something for nothing.

Well has anyone ordered a kit off ebay yet or anything to experiment with?
It is obvious even with all this "steam" or "hotair" didnt get us much past sept 8th.So we need something tangiable!
While on the subject of moveing without gas,I just reread a artical in regards to our local tech school and thier 3rd electric truck conversion.60 mile range per charge,Cost on the first 3 was close to 10 grand.
The 4th project has a budget of 7500.These cost include the cost of the vehical it'self.They use older Ranger pickups.
Their next project will use solar as a second chargeing method.
When I get some sleep I will take the time to find a link or 2 if anything is on the net about it.Stanly Community college.

Dave, they're talking to hear their head rattle...distilled water for use in electrolysis of any kind for any purpose is a waste. The suspended minerals contribute to the conductivity and going to any trouble to remove them is just a waste of time. When you add the sodium carbonate (or whatever), you are doing it to increase the conductive properties of the water. That is why I said distilled water is for batteries. Suspended minerals allow the water to conduct electricity, and that is not what you want going on in a battery. HOWEVER, that is exactly what you want to happen when cleaning metal or producing hydrogen snake oil.

I agree with Royce concerning the little gimmicks that claim the water lasts for a long time. That is totally untrue, as I can lose 1-2" in a 30-gallon brute of water in a 24-hour period doing electrolysis to clean parts. Thats a lot of hydrogen produced I would assume, but not enough to run through a car engine for 24 hours and see any significant gain in mileage.

One point that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the heat generated in relation to the amount of hydrogen that is produced. My friend at work that is playing with the concept has run into a problem with his little "Hydro-Booster". It holds 2 gallons of water and he was going through a gallon of water every 75-100 miles while claiming to see a small increase in mileage. Well, he is pumping in more water vapor than hydrogen...he is boiling the water! It makes a lot of hydrogen when you first turn the switch on and the relay closes (big BOOM when you stick a lighter to it). After 45 minutes or so, there is a lot of vapor coming out the hose, but it don't burn! He thought it would be a good idea to build his little contraption like a battery, with 7 stainless plates sitting about 1" apart, with every other plate having the positive DC attached. That way he has 4 plates (cathodes) rolling off hydrogen and 3 anodes. Well, he made himself a nice little water heater! There is so much surface area that my amprobe registered almost 60 amps (yes, he is using battery cables and his headlights dim when the engine is idling). So, he is making a cooling condensor from an old AC condensor and adding a pump to circulate the water, and brackets to put a bus alternator on his pickup. Now...Royce, David, and some of you others that have a handle on the ins and outs of this will agree he has jumped head-first into a vicious cycle of adding more drag on the engine in order to try and produce more power than it takes to create the fuel, violating the laws of thermodynamics. Hey, when there is a law there is always someone just itching to break it!

Just thought some of you would get a kick out of this. Its funny how folks will go to so much expense and trouble to make the same mistakes that have been made hundreds of times in the past. I guess every generation thinks they are smarter than the one that came before...

Ray

Ray,

That's the whole point. The entire concept is intellectually bankrupt before you begin. You can't get there from here.

Teams of scientists have tried for generations, centuries even, to make it possible to use water for power generation. Someday they will succeed. You won't see kits on ebay when it happens.

Royce

Royce, Water has been used for thousands of years for power generation. We've got a large hydroelectric dam just 5 miles north that powers much of SD, Montana, Wyoming, and elsewhere. It's just not very portable.
Noel

When I was a kid in grade school I waited at my bus stop next to a gas station. As I was waiting one day a guy comes into the station and drives up to the free water spigot for radiators. Only he starts putting it into his gas tank at the rear of his car. A couple of guys come up and tell him to stop, that it was water, not gas. The guy keeps putting water into his tank and starts talking to them. By now I'm over there listening also. He explains he has some pills that, when dropped into the tank with the water, convert the water to fuel. I didn't understand what he was talking about at the time, as he was explaining how they worked, I was only in the 4th grade I think. Anyway after he shuts the water off, he gets a jar from his car and drops about 5 pills into the tank also. They were pretty big, about like moth balls. He starts to put the jar back into his car, when these other guys asked where does he get them. He says he makes them and that he has a couple of extra jars with him if they want any. These guys buy them and the guy with the water in his tank drives off. I saw the 2 guys drive their cars to the free water just as my bus showed up.

So, in that case there was two suckers born every minute and ONE to take them! hehe

Smart people learn from the other peoples mistakes. Fools only learn from their own.

Years ago I was involved in a hydrogen fueled fleet of small trucks. They used an internal combustion engine. The cam was modified so that the intake and exhaust valves were not open at the same time so that hot exhaust would not ignite the hydrogen/air mixture in the intake. The trucks had a pressurized tank of hydrogen gas as a fuel tank. There was a special carburator to supply the hydrogen and mix it with the air.

Several observations were made about how hydrogen burns in air. First, there is a wide range of hydrogen/air mixtures that will ignite, unlike gasoline which has a rather narrow range. Second, the ignition timing varied according to the hydrogen/air ratio. I think it was not as advanced if lean but my memory could be wrong.

In any case, it is possible that the hydrogen generated in the little glass jar is messing with the combustion of the gasoline, making it burn faster or allowing a leaner mixture. It is also possible that not enough hydrogen is generated to do squat.

I wish I had the time to do some experiments. An engine on a dyno with adjustable timing and air/fuel ratio (Model T?) and a supply of hydrogen would answer a lot of questions.

Neil

I heard about the pills-in-the water trick 50 years ago.
There was a plastc bag in the gas tank that got filled with water and raised the gas level in the tank so the car could get gas again. The driver always just happened to have extra pills to sell and he drove away-on gasoline.

As a kid I read Smokey Yunick who wrote in Popular Mechanics and Hot Rod on automotive repair tips and the like and he once addressed the fake gas pills. As you described a man would pull up to a gas station and add water to the gas tank getting a crowd assembled he would get some to buy his pills before driving off. In this case Smokey climbed under the car and looks to see what was going on. What he found was the person had boxed the frame to hide a small gas tank to operate the car's engines. The gas line from the car's tank went into the boxed frame but ended and the small gas tank gas line feeding the engine came out as if it was the same line. Had to be at least 50 years ago. Bob

Well doing further research on my brain " storm" from Sept 5th,I have learned this.

On average, a person produces about half a liter of " natural " gas per day, distributed over an average of about fourteen daily "sessions"
I edited it for words some may find offensive.
So from what I could tell,Mr.Le Petomane or Mr. Methane may be able to travel further than me.
Unless I break out a platter of my aunts deviled eggs!:>)

Aaron and Bob,

This guy never mentioned any plastic bag or exra gas tank. He used a bunch of chemistry words to explain how they worked. I remember he did say he discovered it sort of accidentally while he was making his moonshine.

Steamboat, he WOULD make up just such a story if it would sell the pills...

John, you are SOOO right!

Mack, you keep me in the floor rolling!

Chemistry words. MMMMM! I always get impressed easily by them.

Must have been a genius who simply wanted to make the world a better place for all of us. Obviously he was kidnapped by big oil and is now living in a dungeon somewhere to protect the profits of oil companies. A gigantic conspiracy involving mutant dwarfs from China, George W Bush and Ray Walston.

I found this video that proves steamboat is telling the truth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFlsG5EyGI