Reduce gas using water?

[JonTheSavage]

I was researching hydrogen power, and ran across this company. I thought it was interesting, and decided to post it. I posted on something similar a long time ago about burning salt water using high-frequencies. This looks more practical. This company seems to sell kits to put on your car to use H2O to reduce gas usage in your car.

 

http://gasfreedom.info/

[Paranoid Marvin]

You've been hoaxed...

I heard the thing about burning saltwater, though a quick google search hasn't bought up any reliable sources.

 

However, the method shown on the site is not through burning salt water, but by the production of HHO gas.

Furthermore, the reaction to create this gas requires more energy than the energy gained by burning it.

 

I actually had a good laugh looking at this site - the chemistry presented is a load of twaddle!

[killbot1000]

words like "hydrogen" spelled incorrectly too.

[JonTheSavage]

I built one today with PVC pipe. Costs about $30. My only problem is getting the steel plates lined up correctly. Some people are using copper. It works, and I can light a flame to it like a torch. If I can get it to produce more HHO, it will run great.

[Paranoid Marvin]

You know that HHO has an enthalpy of combustion of -241.8kJ/mol, compared to Octane's (and it's isomers) −5430 kJ/mol. So even if you do get this to work, you would need huge quantities of HHO to reduce your fuel consumption, because the compound just doesn't give off enough energy.

[littledragon]

Pretty sure I saw something like this on Mythbusters... it was busted. In theory it'll work but it can't produce hydrogen fast enough to do anything at all.

[JonTheSavage]

You know that HHO has an enthalpy of combustion of -241.8kJ/mol, compared to Octane's (and it's isomers) −5430 kJ/mol. So even if you do get this to work, you would need huge quantities of HHO to reduce your fuel consumption, because the compound just doesn't give off enough energy.

 

What I got to work today, and its working very well now, in addition to water, I removed the baking soda addition, and added salt. WOW. Its like a bomb going off. I can tell that my 97 Ford Ranger has a good power increase. I had the hose run into the fuel cleaner, which didn't work well, so I moved it into the intake, which works much better. It has a power increase, and I'm getting about 38 mpg, when I normally get 26.

[Paranoid Marvin]

What I got to work today, and its working very well now, in addition to water, I removed the baking soda addition, and added salt. WOW. Its like a bomb going off. I can tell that my 97 Ford Ranger has a good power increase. I had the hose run into the fuel cleaner, which didn't work well, so I moved it into the intake, which works much better. It has a power increase, and I'm getting about 38 mpg, when I normally get 26.

 

Wow, call me impressed when you are getting 55mpg like a decent European car

[JonTheSavage]

Wow, call me impressed when you are getting 55mpg like a decent European car

 

You are emitting too much CO2. Al Gore doesn't like that. You have to make your 55 mpg car capable of 90 mpg. Now, go scoot around on your 3hp go-cart.

[Numberzz]

You are emitting too much CO2. Al Gore doesn't like that. You have to make your 55 mpg car capable of 90 mpg. Now, go scoot around on your 3hp go-cart.

Yeah, but their cars get way more MPG than American cars do. Why don't we all agree that more MPG is better because the amount of oil in the Earth will eventually run out? There are a lot of other benefits, but you won't believe them anyway.

[JonTheSavage]

Yeah, but their cars get way more MPG than American cars do. Why don't we all agree that more MPG is better because the amount of oil in the Earth will eventually run out? There are a lot of other benefits, but you won't believe them anyway.

 

I care about spending $3.50 for a gallon of gas, and getting a 23hp increase out of a 130hp 4 banger. Thats all that I'm concerned about. You should try and build one, it makes a real difference. 2 feet of PVC pipe, 2 steel rods, some water, and some salt can do a lot.

[killbot1000]

For the last 100 years or so we have in the US (when it comes to cars) focused almost exclusively on increasing horsepower and vehicle size for the SAME gas mileage (which at this time, the average is somewhere between 15-25 MPG). What we need to do now is to shift focus for getting the SAME horsepower that we do today at more efficient MPG standards. This will induce conservation because people will still be filling up their cars but their cars will require far less gas. We need to be coming out with plug in electric or hybrid cars, so that 99% of the time when we are near home, we can plug our cars in at night and use absolutely no gas whatsoever, in this case, gas can rise to 10 dollars a gallon and nobody would really care.

 

If however we move in this direction, there will be problems (everybody plugging their cars into coal fired power plants which actually emit CO2). So we must do two things at the end of the day. We must push legislation to move cars into a more efficient future, and we must at the same time (sooner if possible) start building renewable energy (Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro-electric, etc.)

 

This will effectively fix our energy problem, I just hope that we end up doing it BEFORE we run out of energy, it will be a lot harder and more expensive to get things off the ground at that time. One months worth of money that goes to Iraq would go a long way.

[brainbone]

For the last 100 years or so we have in the US (when it comes to cars) focused almost exclusively on increasing horsepower and vehicle size for the SAME gas mileage (which at this time, the average is somewhere between 15-25 MPG). What we need to do now is to shift focus for getting the SAME horsepower that we do today at more efficient MPG standards.

 

Reduce the weight of the car (carbon composite, etc.), reduce the weight of the occupants (getting off our fat ass and walking more), move to low emissions energy distribution (battery / hydrogen, whatever can be executed more quickly and at a lower cost) -- three basic things we've made little to no real progess on implementing. Technology is there, but the social/political/commercial will, at least in the US, is not.

 

If however we move in this direction, there will be problems (everybody plugging their cars into coal fired power plants which actually emit CO2).

 

The increased load of using the electric grid for automotive energy distribution should help force the issue of creating more efficient energy production and distribution, as the current system, at least in the states, wouldn't be able to hold up. So while it certainly needs to happen, it needs incentive to force it, and electric powered autos could be that incentive.

[iSkylla]

Thermodynamics. It's a {censored} isn't it?

[(MoC)]

I did something similar this year for a science project. Yes, it is efficient to make energy with water...

 

@iSkylla: Yes it is

[Special-K]

For the last 100 years or so we have in the US (when it comes to cars) focused almost exclusively on increasing horsepower and vehicle size for the SAME gas mileage (which at this time, the average is somewhere between 15-25 MPG). What we need to do now is to shift focus for getting the SAME horsepower that we do today at more efficient MPG standards. This will induce conservation because people will still be filling up their cars but their cars will require far less gas. We need to be coming out with plug in electric or hybrid cars, so that 99% of the time when we are near home, we can plug our cars in at night and use absolutely no gas whatsoever, in this case, gas can rise to 10 dollars a gallon and nobody would really care.

 

If however we move in this direction, there will be problems (everybody plugging their cars into coal fired power plants which actually emit CO2). So we must do two things at the end of the day. We must push legislation to move cars into a more efficient future, and we must at the same time (sooner if possible) start building renewable energy (Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro-electric, etc.)

 

This will effectively fix our energy problem, I just hope that we end up doing it BEFORE we run out of energy, it will be a lot harder and more expensive to get things off the ground at that time. One months worth of money that goes to Iraq would go a long way.

You do know that'll never happen right? Politicians have money in the gas companies. They'll make sure they still get money from their gas stocks for years to come. Sorry I sound like JonTheRetard, but it's pretty true. Alot of politicians have alot of stock in things they can sway with laws. And I do agree with your little Iraq statement. One months worth of Iraq money could do so much for the country and economy.

[brainbone]

You do know that'll never happen right? Politicians have money in the gas companies. They'll make sure they still get money from their gas stocks for years to come.

 

"All" it takes is for a startup to produce an affordable, light weight, efficient, electric auto capable of driving relatively long distances between recharging. Counting on the current crop of auto manufactures is where our mistake is. They have too much invested in the production of heavy framed, large engine autos, and will not invest in re-tooling until there is ample competition. Expect the next "Google" to be the ones that figure out how to do this, but at this point, all ventures fitting the above requirements miss on at least one point, the most common being price.

[Special-K]

"All" it takes is for a startup to produce an affordable, light weight, efficient, electric auto capable of driving relatively long distances between recharging. Counting on the current crop of auto manufactures is where our mistake is. They have too much invested in the production of heavy framed, large engine autos, and will not invest in re-tooling until there is ample competition. Expect the next "Google" to be the ones that figure out how to do this, but at this point, all ventures fitting the above requirements miss on at least one point, the most common being price.

I agree with you on that, but what does my post have to do with anything you posted?

[brainbone]

I agree with you on that, but what does my post have to do with anything you posted?

 

That a shift in energy policy doesn't have to be tied to politicians and oil money. It is possible for some venturous souls to step up to the plate and release the products necessary to begin the change.

 

Now, obviously shifting autos off gas doesn't solve the energy problem in itself, as it only shifts the production from the engine of the car to the power plant, but it is a good place to start. The new burden on the power plants would bring more attention to them, seeing as the auto would now be "clean".

[Special-K]

That a shift in energy policy doesn't have to be tied to politicians and oil money. It is possible for some venturous souls to step up to the plate and release the products necessary to begin the change.

 

Now, obviously shifting autos off gas doesn't solve the energy problem in itself, as it only shifts the production from the engine of the car to the power plant, but it is a good place to start. The new burden on the power plants would bring more attention to them, seeing as the auto would now be "clean".

Alright, got it now. I woke up from a nap before I read your post and didn't fully grasp the wording.

 

And yea it definitely doesn't have to be tied in with any of that. But killbot was talking about passing legislation for auto companies to require cars to have better MPG. And I doubt that they'll do that. But what you are saying about the next 'Google' (like the analogy) thinking up something, I completely agree with that. We need some little group that are pissed off at gas to think up a way to go places without spending half their paycheck on their car.

[Paranoid Marvin]

I'm still not convinced about this - the chemistry just doesn't add up.

The amount of gas that would need to be produced, would give a tiny increase, and it would require more energy to create the gas by electrolysis.

[brainbone]

But killbot was talking about passing legislation for auto companies to require cars to have better MPG. And I doubt that they'll do that.

 

Agreed. My apologies for the confusion.

[Special-K]

Agreed. My apologies for the confusion.

Nah, don't worry about it. I could've just quoted that certain part instead of the whole thing.

[killbot1000]

I wouldn't buy any of these things over the internet, many of them look like scams. Although I decided to actually do the research, and if one builds one of these themselves, it actually does improve fuel economy. You can even get it MUCH higher if you know how to mess around with a cars computer and tell it to accept less gas into the engine.

 

Here is a link to the PDF where it explains HOW to build one of these. I plan on giving it a try to see what happens. Experimentation I always say.

 

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/

 

Check that link out, it also shows OTHER methods of producing electricity that does not rely on oil.

 

Love

Killbot

 

Edit:

 

Here is a 1600 page document in PDF format which explains that SAME things. Hydrogen Boosters are also covered in this PDF, as well as solar panels, flywheels, and other forms of non-oil alternative energy. Give it a look:

 

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/PJKBook.html

[killbot1000]

You know that HHO has an enthalpy of combustion of -241.8kJ/mol, compared to Octane's (and it's isomers) −5430 kJ/mol. So even if you do get this to work, you would need huge quantities of HHO to reduce your fuel consumption, because the compound just doesn't give off enough energy.

 

Thats the point though, in an internal combustion engine, one is not trying to use the HHO exclusively for fuel, one would be using it to prevent the engine from taking in too much gas (of which 80% is wasted). The droplets of gas do not ignite, only the vapor. HHO goes through the air intake and basically makes the "air" going into the engine, MUCH more robust for an ignition, so it does not need to take in as much gas as it would have normally. The O2 sensors on your car would detect more than usual oxygen, and would reduce the fuel accordingly. The word is that this actually works. I have not tested it myself though. I plan to very soon, I am going to the store to buy the parts today ($40 worth of stuff), if it works great, I will let you guys know (with pictures, video, descriptions, etc.) if it does not work I will be honest about it as well.

 

It looks promising but I am skeptical, that is why I am going to just plain try it out.

 

Wish me luck!

 

PS!!!!!!:

 

JonTheSavage, Show us pictures of your car's setup, I want to see for myself!