So George... Did it work?

I have trudged through all six pages of this thread...waiting to see some real numbers showing this thing works....

 

Now, unlike many on here, I am no scientist.  But, wouldnt the best way for this guy to prove his system works be to have an independant organization (I dont know, does Consumer Reports do stuff like this?) perform the gold standard of tests with a double blind comparison?

If some well-respected third party were to conduct tests and report these findings, wouldnt this settle the arguement over the actual science of the system?

So, my question is...why hasnt this guy or his company done this?  I mean, if they did, and it showed a 10-80% increase in fuel mileage they would sell their books like crazy!

 In six months they would be millionares.  They must know this....right?

 

Andre, or whatever your name is...what do you have to say about this?

 

 

This is a scam. Repeat, scam! This has been debunked on more than one occasion. The study pasted here covers the narrow set of parameters in which you could see emissions reduction (a tune up would be cheaper and similarly effective on most vehicles). The claims of huge improvements in mpg are completed unsupported by the testing.

I Have read alot on hydrogen for a couple of years and i do belive it can be done and i truly belive what Stan Meyers did is real http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html The Gov and the petro companys don't waht you to belive in any of this. we have been teached our hole live petro is the only sorce we have and this is complete BS!

My boyfriend put this water4gas on his V6 2001 Nissan Maxima and he was getting 18mpg and now he is at 24 mpg. Call it whatever you want, but when everyone is paying $4 a gallon for gas this spring/ summer... He is putting one is my car soon (we live in Buffalo, NY.... and if you are with the headlines we've got a lot of snow at the moment!) Anyways If anyone wants to be updated my email is thewaxingstudio@mac.com I'll let anyone know what my results will be on my 2001 hyundai elantra PS My b/f has yet to instal the map sensor on his car... so his mpg may increase some more!

 Annnnd suddenly we have a pair of first-time posters who claim to have a big boost in their MPG. Smells like fish to me.

 Guys:

 I don't doubt that some of the claims and explantions on this are probably wrong.

But, I don't think we should all jump on the 100% sure it is a hoax bandwagon yet. 

I do think it is worth looking at and seeing where there is real data.  Recently, I saw a discussion on infpop where there are a few who claim to be getting some benefit.

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/269605551/m/3311067622/p/2 

I don't really believe it  yet, but I'd encourage people who have not personally done test to disprove it, to keep an open mind.

I have read enough posts from people who claim it is working to create some doubt that it might not be 100% BS.   

The idea of the hydrogen being fuel seems like a clear looser.  But, the idea that it might improve combustion of the main fuel seems like it may be possible, particularly under certain conditions. 

The water 4 gas may be the weakest example of the group too.  No? 

Yeah....it does seem just a little suspicious with the two first time posters.  I also noted that they have some of the same spelling difficulties that the original poster has.

 

I am certainly very, very open to the possibility that this can increase fuel mileage.  But, having a few anonymous posters or some unsubstantiated claims on a website DOES NOT give any validity to this water4gas thing...

I have noticed that Andre or anyone else have failed to respond to my question.  Why, if this "technology" has been around for so long, has there not been a reputable third party hired to conduct a subjective double blind study?  If this were done, it would prove to the public that these incredible gains are in fact true.  Who wouldnt pay 40 bucks for some books if they meant you could increase your mileage this much? 

 

I would imagine that, until this is done, water4gas and other companies trying to make a buck of this "technology", will have to make do scamming the somewhat less intelligent of our country.

morris1524:

 Guys:

 I don't doubt that some of the claims and explantions on this are probably wrong.

But, I don't think we should all jump on the 100% sure it is a hoax bandwagon yet. 

I do think it is worth looking at and seeing where there is real data.  Recently, I saw a discussion on infpop where there are a few who claim to be getting some benefit.

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/269605551/m/3311067622/p/2 

I don't really believe it  yet, but I'd encourage people who have not personally done test to disprove it, to keep an open mind.

I have read enough posts from people who claim it is working to create some doubt that it might not be 100% BS.   

The idea of the hydrogen being fuel seems like a clear looser.  But, the idea that it might improve combustion of the main fuel seems like it may be possible, particularly under certain conditions. 

The water 4 gas may be the weakest example of the group too.  No? 

Belief has NOTHING to do with it.  Open minds have nothing to do with it.  You cannot get free energy out of WATER!

I do tend to agree with you...however I am no scientist or chemist.  I have seen the debate on here about its "scientific validity".  So, apparently, not everyone agrees on whether it is possible or not...

 

The only way to REALLY answer the question is to do a valid test.  With emphasis on "valid".

 

mattbatson:

I do tend to agree with you...however I am no scientist or chemist.  I have seen the debate on here about its "scientific validity".  So, apparently, not everyone agrees on whether it is possible or not...

 

The only way to REALLY answer the question is to do a valid test.  With emphasis on "valid".

 

Of course you are free to validate it.  However, there is no debate on the science, you cannot "burn" water.

old300D:

morris1524:

 Guys:

 I don't doubt that some of the claims and explantions on this are probably wrong.

But, I don't think we should all jump on the 100% sure it is a hoax bandwagon yet. 

I do think it is worth looking at and seeing where there is real data.  Recently, I saw a discussion on infpop where there are a few who claim to be getting some benefit.

http://biodiesel.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/269605551/m/3311067622/p/2 

I don't really believe it  yet, but I'd encourage people who have not personally done test to disprove it, to keep an open mind.

I have read enough posts from people who claim it is working to create some doubt that it might not be 100% BS.   

The idea of the hydrogen being fuel seems like a clear looser.  But, the idea that it might improve combustion of the main fuel seems like it may be possible, particularly under certain conditions. 

The water 4 gas may be the weakest example of the group too.  No? 

Belief has NOTHING to do with it.  Open minds have nothing to do with it.  You cannot get free energy out of WATER!

 

 

I think you are missing the point.  I agree you can't burn water, as you say in a later post.  I agree you can't get "free energy".  It all comes from somewhere.  

But, from what I have read on some of the better sites, they are saying that it may only take a very small amount of hydrogen gas to improve the combustion of the other fuel significantly.  This is the area of this discussion that seems like it could have some promise.  Did anyone else look at the articles linked in the infopop thread?

The numbers on combustion efficiency from adding a small amount of hydrogen show improvements of 1%-2%.  That is the ceiling.  If you spend more energy to make more hydrogen, your efficiency gains will be lost due to the inefficiencies of making hydrogen.  And this system only improves engines that have small combustion inefficiencies, it cannot help past full combustion efficiency, or on newer, more efficient vehicles.

old300D:

The numbers on combustion efficiency from adding a small amount of hydrogen show improvements of 1%-2%.  That is the ceiling.  If you spend more energy to make more hydrogen, your efficiency gains will be lost due to the inefficiencies of making hydrogen.  And this system only improves engines that have small combustion inefficiencies, it cannot help past full combustion efficiency, or on newer, more efficient vehicles.

 

 Can you provide supporting documents which support your assertion that 1-2% is the max improvement in efficiency?

 Just to be 100% clear:  I am not supporting this "Water 4 Gas" system.  I think the guy who started it makes unfounded claims left and right.

Clearly the effects would vary from vehicle to vehicle.  

I am just not yet 100% sure that the idea behind this might not have some use under certain conditions.

morris1524:

But, from what I have read on some of the better sites, they are saying that it may only take a very small amount of hydrogen gas to improve the combustion of the other fuel significantly.  This is the area of this discussion that seems like it could have some promise.  Did anyone else look at the articles linked in the infopop thread?

First, are you saying this is not one of the better sites?!?!?!?!?!? Anywho...

Second, lets be clear that the H2 production is a net energy loser. Everyone needs to agree on this or we cannot move on.

So then, this argument assumes that fuel isnt combusted completely? Modern engines are more than 99% efficient at combusting fuel like gaz or diesel. When an engine underperforms this number, there is something wrong with the engine and adding H2 is only going to mask that problem. But because its a net energy loser, even tho it will improve the performance of a faulty engine, it is still an energy loser because of the H2 losses. So it seems that with only less than 1% increase in efficiency potential, that this argument cannot hold up. So I guess those 'better sites', arnt.

The engine themselves are very efficient at burning fuel, its just that they are inefficient at turning that combustion into forward motion. Burning H2 in your engine is not going to solve that inefficiency.

Moral of the story is that you can argue until your green in the face but you will never make this water2gas thermodynamically work. And never in a bazillion years can you make it work out economically. So, can we drop it or do I need to get out a white board?

froggy:

morris1524:

But, from what I have read on some of the better sites, they are saying that it may only take a very small amount of hydrogen gas to improve the combustion of the other fuel significantly.  This is the area of this discussion that seems like it could have some promise.  Did anyone else look at the articles linked in the infopop thread?

First, are you saying this is not one of the better sites?!?!?!?!?!? Anywho...

Second, lets be clear that the H2 production is a net energy loser. Everyone needs to agree on this or we cannot move on.

So then, this argument assumes that fuel isnt combusted completely? Modern engines are more than 99% efficient at combusting fuel like gaz or diesel. When an engine underperforms this number, there is something wrong with the engine and adding H2 is only going to mask that problem. But because its a net energy loser, even tho it will improve the performance of a faulty engine, it is still an energy loser because of the H2 losses. So it seems that with only less than 1% increase in efficiency potential, that this argument cannot hold up. So I guess those 'better sites', arnt.

The engine themselves are very efficient at burning fuel, its just that they are inefficient at turning that combustion into forward motion. Burning H2 in your engine is not going to solve that inefficiency.

Moral of the story is that you can argue until your green in the face but you will never make this water2gas thermodynamically work. And never in a bazillion years can you make it work out economically. So, can we drop it or do I need to get out a white board?

 

 Froggy,

To clarify, the "better" comment was refering to better than the water4gas site, not better than here. 

Wow, I thought it was a discussion site.  Some of what you write is are kind of insulting...

I also notice you did not provide documentation.  Only some logic, based on unsupported assumptions, which might or might not hold up.  Where does your 99% plus figure come from?  What is the cut off for a "modern" engine?

Also, you appear to assume that I would only be interested in modern engines... might this idea apply to vintage cars? 

My line of questioning is:  under what conditions could this work, and if it did work, how much benefit could it provide?

If the answer turns out to be only on old, gas cars and the potential benefit is only 2%, then fine, that is the answer.  But don't imply that I am an idiot for looking into the idea and how it might apply. 

 

I am basing my 1%-2% remark on the documentation already provided in the thread.  Another way of looking at combustion efficiency is looking at what comes out the tailpipe.  No hydrocarbons or carbon monoxide suggests complete combustion.  Most vehicles, without catalytic converters, emit less than 1% of these compounds.  That verifies the 2% ultimate gain from using hydrogen to help with the combustion efficiency.

 You could potentially improve a vintage car a bit more, but it will never exceed the fuel efficiency of an equivalently sized and powered modern car.

 IMO, a fruit jar of water, some elec & the H2 going to the intake system on my truck will not increase my mpg. IMO, it won't produce enough H2 to help.

That said, a "modern" gasoline car engine is no marvel of efficiency.

Fuel in an engine has to burn by about 25 degrees atdc to be of use. If you look around, you will find bte charts that compare diesel to gasoline that show this. A diesel engine is very good a burning it's fuel before 25 degrees atdc. That is the reason that the bte of diesel is very good. Gasoline burns to slow to get a good bte.

An engine can burn 100% of its fuel and get very bad mpg. Say this engine burns fuel as the following:

15% between 0 & 25 degrees atdc

20% between 25 & 50 degrees atdc

65% between 50 & 100 degrees atdc

This engine would have burnt 100% of its fuel, gotten 0 HC.CO emissions & have very little hp for the amount of fuel used.

This is basic engine engineering. No arguing about this, unless one just wants meaningless debate.

IMO, adding H2 with a water/elec system would only have a real value with a fuel that burnt to slow to work in an ICE, but was cheap. 

I  might play around with it on the dyno. Be entertaining & cost no more then going to a movie.

Martin 

 old300d,

A production 1940's era P&W gasoline engine has a bte that is the same as todays best car gasoline engines. Not much progress in 70 years.

I don't mean to be arguing with you that last few days, just happened to work out that way.

Hopefully this is the last I post on this thread, but I thought that once before. 

Martin

perotter:

 old300d,

A production 1940's era P&W gasoline engine has a bte that is the same as todays best car gasoline engines. Not much progress in 70 years.

I don't mean to be arguing with you that last few days, just happened to work out that way.

Hopefully this is the last I post on this thread, but I thought that once before. 

Martin

I don't mean to be argumentative either.  I agree about the bte, but the only efficiency I've been talking about in this thread is combustion efficiency.  I concede the point that the engine tune has much to do with how efficient the vehicle is, and how it still may have close to 100% combustion efficiency.  My entire point is the hydrogen may promote 100% combustion efficiency, but will not improve bte (which I am assuming you mean is thermal efficiency).  So the small amount of gain made by gaining 100% combustion efficiency will quickly be erased by dumping more energy into splitting water to make more hydrogen fuel.  Taken to an extreme, it is a losing proposition.