Archives

I am thinking about converting my old ford escort to run on water at a test. This one of the lastest fuel saving concepts that are floating around the NET these days. I fully understand the science behind how it would work. And was wondering has anyone converted one of their cars to run on water? There are several sites that are offering the instructions for a fee. [link removed] was the cheapest I'd found, while others are charging $100, they only want $49 bucks and offer a money back guarantee. I was in shock after I saw people were using cooking oil to power their Diesel cars. I think it could work.

It's doubtful whether this works. The energy to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen is coming from the engine and alternator. Then it's fed back into the engine - with losses along the way. It's a borderline case of a perpetual motion machine.

Try the driving techniques listed in our Articles. They are proven to work. We don't make any money from you trying them, so we have no reason to mislead you. Other sites stand to gain sales by telling you their product works. You decide...

This is one of the more thoroughly ridiculous fuel saving scams in existence. Sadly, some still fall for it.

And more saddly is that there are people out there that have done it and are still using it.

Any rig is going to run better at sea level than at Denver...... and that is why?????

How long ago was it that people said that some one with a diesel could not run waste veg oil? and how many today are running it?

Wow.

WVO and SVO setups for diesel engines have nothing whatsoever to do with the "water car" myth. Veggie oils are combustible, just like diesel. You burn them in the engine and get work. Done, no tricks.

The "water car" thing always comes down to burning hydrogen that was split from the water molecule by electrolysis, and it always conveniently neglects the fact that the energy to do the splitting has to come from somewhere. It violates the first law of thermodynamics. It's just false as every othe perpetual motion "invention."

If this works it will easily overshadow the hypermiling piece on CNN this week. ;)

Thanks for the feedback everyone, you all just saved me $49 bucks.:)

I just have a bad feeling about the idea... I have enough concerns about water conservation and pollution, that in general I don't like the idea of relying on water to run our cars... where is THAT going to going from... :confused:

I for one find it extremely disappointing that the Nobel Prize committee has overlooked this particular miracle.:rolleyes:

Someone tried to explain to me why the running off water idea does not violate laws of thermodynamics. The rationale went something like this: Gas engines are only about %30 efficient. Feeding some oxygen/hydrogen into the intake increases efficiency so much (over just air and gasoline) that there is a net gain in efficiency even after the losses from producing the hydrogen/oxygen.

Im still far beyond skeptical. That %30 number mainly has to do with heat losses through cylinder walls and limits on how far you can compress gasoline before causing pre-ignition. It is EXTREMELY doubtful that adding hydrogen and oxygen makes any significant change to engine efficiency. I can't think of a single reason it would...

And yes, anyone who thinks you can use energy to spilt water and then burn the h2 and 0 back to their water state for a net gain of energy has some serious holes in their knowledge of physics and energy.

If the Hydrogen did happen to increase the efficiency of a IC engine, it would have to be more efficient to create the Hydrogen in another manner than on board your vehicle. Your car is not a very efficient electricity generator.

Bottom line...most everything that is 'too good be true' is just that...just like everyone else has said.

Someone tried to explain to me why the running off water idea does not violate laws of thermodynamics. The rationale went something like this: Gas engines are only about %30 efficient. Feeding some oxygen/hydrogen into the intake increases efficiency so much (over just air and gasoline) that there is a net gain in efficiency even after the losses from producing the hydrogen/oxygen.

Im still far beyond skeptical. That %30 number mainly has to do with heat losses through cylinder walls and limits on how far you can compress gasoline before causing pre-ignition. It is EXTREMELY doubtful that adding hydrogen and oxygen makes any significant change to engine efficiency. I can't think of a single reason it would...

And yes, anyone who thinks you can use energy to spilt water and then burn the h2 and 0 back to their water state for a net gain of energy has some serious holes in their knowledge of physics and energy.

You can't think of a single reason why adding oxygen would help engine effeciency? I can think of 78 of them. As in 78% of what your ICE is ingesting and compressing is INERT. The 30% number is not only due to heat loss. There is zero power returned from pumping and compressing nitrogen. If you could inject significant amounts of oxygen in the incoming airstream and hydrogen in the fuel stream, that could be beneficial, despite hand-waving claims of violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. However, your ICE would have to be designed to benefit from this, which obviously none are.

I am not arguing in favor of these devices, but to blithely dismiss them without a rigorous analysis is specious. To paraphrase Rod Tidwell, "Show Me The Math!"

I understand the idea of 'you cant split up water, use the power and turn it back to water", but WHAT IF your not turning the H and O back into water, what if they combine with some of the other C, HC, O, Nx and all the other stuff, then could you make the math work so that it wouldn't violate any thermodynamical laws?

An ex-employee insisted that a man in Missouri invented a water-powered car in the 1970's and Detroit kept it from going anywhere - really?

Think for a moment - if this works, the inventor is not just the next Bill Gates, he is the John D Rockefeller Sr. of the 21st century! He would be a billionaire at warp speed, win the Nobel Prize, etc.

Before we go on, explain why the water-power guy isn't a household word.

To the original poster, I've also been reading up on HHO. I think it's clear that most of the online sites offering these products or plans are scams. But I don't necessarily think the technology itself is to be dismissed. It's old technology but in a new application that I think is not completely understood. Search the net for Smack booster, this is the only credible product I've seen. The designer has the complete plans, parts, instructions posted free. He avoids making ridiculous claims like other sites I've seen. You definitely do not want to pay a cent for any plans or instructions.

I think with many of the scam products, mpg increases are either false or produced using techniques like discussed on this site, or due to lean mixture forced mods that are usually mentioned as required with the HHO product, or due to water vapor produced. What is really lacking are any credible long term results or studies and a clear scientific explanation behind the application.

@carld: I highly doubt that any automotive hydrolysis unit will produce a volume of HHO sufficient to make a noticible dent in the ratio of inert gasses entering an engine.. think about it...

@scramblejim: I suppose there might be a chemical reaction where you could scavenge some of the unused heat potential in the gasoline, but it seems quite dubious at best.

Think about it.. Air already has about 21% oxygen, so raising the oxygen by a hair isnt going to help much (just drive through a forest - the oxygen % is higher because of all the plants converting CO2 to O2). So whatever effect it could have would have to be from adding hydrogen. An engine operating under load flows 100s of CFM of air. Hydrolysis output volume is miniscule by comparison. I am quite willing to be convinced that HHO could work, if there is a cogent rationale/theory/math behind the method.

@carld: I highly doubt that any automotive hydrolysis unit will produce a volume of HHO sufficient to make a noticible dent in the ratio of inert gasses entering an engine.. think about it...

@scramblejim: I suppose there might be a chemical reaction where you could scavenge some of the unused heat potential in the gasoline, but it seems quite dubious at best.

Think about it.. Air already has about 21% oxygen, so raising the oxygen by a hair isnt going to help much (just drive through a forest - the oxygen % is higher because of all the plants converting CO2 to O2). So whatever effect it could have would have to be from adding hydrogen. An engine operating under load flows 100s of CFM of air. Hydrolysis output volume is miniscule by comparison. I am quite willing to be convinced that HHO could work, if there is a cogent rationale/theory/math behind the method.

Yes, as I stated in my post the engine would have to be designed to take advatage of such a beast, but that's not really my point. My point is, there are a myriad of ways to lower the BSFC of an ICE that require NO additional energy input. Lowering the BSFC can be attained by reducing frictional losses, pumping losses, etc. But improvements in the actual oxidation process of the fuel are possible, but sometimes difficult to quantify. What if for a certain engine the addition of H2 into the airstream resulted in an improvement of the wet distribution pattern of from say 70% to 80%? Could this result in more power out than the power required to generate the H2? Is it possible that this could be the case or does the second law of thermodynamics forbid it? Could total advance be reduced or the flame front altered sufficiently to produce net efficiency gain? Improving the energy conversion from 30 to 33% improves your FE by 10%. There is much efficiency to be gained from ICEs beyond attempting to make them adiabatic. Offsetting the crank, increasing the rod ratio, putting swirl patterns on intake valves, etc. It is my belief that if a CAFE of 40MPG had been legislated years ago, you would see all kinds of "gimmicks" to improve the efficiency of ICEs.

So, that was my attempt at inflicting post-mortem trauma on that particular equine.

I am thinking about converting my old ford escort to run on water at a test. This one of the lastest fuel saving concepts that are floating around the NET these days. I fully understand the science behind how it would work. And was wondering has anyone converted one of their cars to run on water? There are several sites that are offering the instructions for a fee. [link removed] was the cheapest I'd found, while others are charging $100, they only want $49 bucks and offer a money back guarantee. I was in shock after I saw people were using cooking oil to power their Diesel cars. I think it could work.Let's get bottom line.

If this works, why isn't the inventor a billionaire?

Why is this being discussed as if somehow it would work that well?