| Author | Message | ||
| John G Root Jr (Johnroot)
Registered Member Username: Johnroot Post Number: 94 Registered: 2-2002 Posted From: 64.214.182.117 Rating: N/A |
Is anyone using Hydroxy Gas or Brown's gas, Hydrodren to supplement their fuel? Please let me know if you know anyone experimenting with Water for Fuel. | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 246 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 4.88.110.196  Rating: N/A |
Junk science. You take 5 units of fuel energy (turning the alternator) to make 1 unit of hydrogen-burn energy. Sure, you can make the output pipe make a nice "pop" but it makes virtually no heat energy. The reason that car/truck/bus manufacturers are investing in fuel cell technology to use hydrogen as a fuel? Because hydrogen burning give virtually no energy. It works well in a fuel cell but poor as a fuel. Total junk science. | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 402 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 208.100.193.27 Rating: N/A |
Before ALGORE invented the internet , folks interested in either politics or investments would subscribe to newsletters or listen to short wave radio. That was while the Dems had the "fairness doctrine" and all AM radio were allowed play was garden shows and crappy music. Brown gas was a BS for at least 40 years. But the Brooklyn Bridge gets sold daily. Today 95% of the internet is BS , at least when it comes to "Run your car on water" send $2000 for the seceret! However with energy prices now out of the hands of OPEC , the hard work by real folks can continue , with out OPEC dropping the oil to $15 a BBL to stop any research. The USA has far more oil and energy (+300%) than the Persian gulf , but one political party sez DROP DEAD to getting it.Ever wonder WHY? FF | ||
| Tim Brandt (Timb)
Registered Member Username: Timb Post Number: 185 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 66.165.176.60  Rating: N/A |
The only real working application I know of regarding a gas generator in the automotive industry was the carbide genrator on an early Model T. It used water dripping into calcium carbide to create acetylene to power the headlamps (Message edited by timb on July 11, 2008) | ||
| Arthur J Griffith (Arthurseagle)
Registered Member Username: Arthurseagle Post Number: 51 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 72.236.102.174 Rating: N/A |
TIM- Im have a 1910 Mo T that has the carbide headlights. But I cannot find the calcium carbide crystals for it. The last place that I talked to who use to sell it said that they couldn't get it anymore. Some kind of enviromental issue. Prob. the same bunch that won't let us drill for OIL. They want me to hang up my antique cars. ARTHUR | ||
| John Lacey (Junkman42)
Registered Member Username: Junkman42 Post Number: 45 Registered: 3-2007 Posted From: 69.19.14.35  Rating: N/A |
Arthur, You can buy calicum carbide from Post Apple Scientific quite cheaply. Try google for contact info. It is also available from hobby companys that make carbide cannons. You have to pay a $2.50 handling fee is the only hassle. Use with caution, I once had a carbide lantern blow up while night fishing on a reef in Okinawa. John | ||
| david tiehen (Dave4106)
Registered Member Username: Dave4106 Post Number: 9 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 72.160.34.219 Rating: N/A |
excuse me bruce, junk science? hardly. i believe the question was asked if it was being used as a supplement to fuel, not as a fuel. in fact, and i emphasize fact, it has and is being used now to increase fuel mileage and power in both gas and diesel engines. up to 50% in some gas engines and up to 15% on large diesel. | ||
| David Lower (Dave_l)
Registered Member Username: Dave_l Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2007 Posted From: 206.248.158.21  Rating: |
Hi all you should still be able to get calcium carbide, because it is still used to make acetylene.Just to clear things a little. Tim you have the process rite but reversed an acetylene generator is a tank of water with controled amounts of calcium carbide going into the water. the top of the generator is shaped like a funnel to colect the gas and is then piped off. A word of warning to all! if you are going to try and make your own gas if it gets over 15 psi it becomes unstable and can self ignite. Dave L | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 247 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 4.88.106.136 Rating: N/A |
"it has and is being used now to increase fuel mileage and power in both gas and diesel engines. up to 50% in some gas engines and up to 15% on large diesel." __. And every scientifically-based study (by real scientists and not people who are trying to get you to send them $250 for "plans") have found that it does just what every thermo-dynamicist will forecast that it does: 0% improvment for gas engines and 0% improvement for diesel engines. Sorry, it only is good for transferring money from a gullible pocket to the shyster's pocket. | ||
| david tiehen (Dave4106)
Registered Member Username: Dave4106 Post Number: 10 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 72.160.34.219 Rating: N/A |
funny thing about that 0% increase. i truck for a living and run a 450 hp detroit series 60 for power and also use a hydrogen generator and my fuel mileage has increased from 5.7 mpg to 6.55 pulling 100,000 lbs. correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a 15% increase. huge money in today's fuel cost. | ||
| Ray Drummond (Ray_d)
Registered Member Username: Ray_d Post Number: 40 Registered: 4-2006 Posted From: 69.105.94.18 Rating: N/A |
Dave, How are you producing this hydrogen, you have increased by almost 1 mpg, but what are the costs to see this increase, nothing is free. Really interested, Ray D (Message edited by Ray_D on July 13, 2008) | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 404 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 208.100.193.122 Rating: |
"that's a 15% increase". The big fleets see a 35% difference overall in fuel use depending on WHO the driver is.(OOTA) Getting just 15% could be that you are driving with a lighter foot , shifting properly , looking at tire pressures and being more rational. IF anything like this actually worked don't you think the fleets with 1000 trucks would be there? The Chinese Commy's and India with a 300,000,000 middle class , and no concept of copyright laws would copy and be developing this like crazy. If they could be "handed" the build plans for the T 88 nuke weapon (thanks Bill Clinton ) something from Popular Mechanics should be sorta simple to get. FF | ||
| John Lacey (Junkman42)
Registered Member Username: Junkman42 Post Number: 46 Registered: 3-2007 Posted From: 69.19.14.40 Rating: N/A |
Fast Fred, is it possible that We are related? My sentiments exactly. John | ||
| Arthur J Griffith (Arthurseagle)
Registered Member Username: Arthurseagle Post Number: 52 Registered: 8-2006 Posted From: 72.236.102.137 Rating: N/A |
JOHN- THANKS for the info on the source on the Calcium Carbide. | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 248 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 4.88.107.233 Rating: N/A |
F Fred said "If they could be "handed" the build plans for the T 88 nuke weapon (thanks Bill Clinton ) something from Popular Mechanics should be sorta simple to get." __. What the gullible don't "get" is that you shouldn't send $250 to somebody over the Internet who is promising to break the laws of physics! | ||
| James Robinson (Jjrbus)
Registered Member Username: Jjrbus Post Number: 140 Registered: 12-2000 Posted From: 68.242.125.176 Rating: N/A |
Darn, I just sent $250 for the plans for the T 88 nuke!!!!!! You sure its not going to work?? | ||
| Robert Fischer (Rbt137)
Registered Member Username: Rbt137 Post Number: 11 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 71.111.89.116  Rating: N/A |
FF, a breath of fresh air. Americans too stupid to drill where they know! they have oil. Drinks on me when I get there. ((((at least the first one)))) | ||
| david tiehen (Dave4106)
Registered Member Username: Dave4106 Post Number: 11 Registered: 11-2006 Posted From: 72.160.34.219 Rating: N/A |
fred you are full of s--- first off ,don't patronise me on my driving habits. i have been an owner operator for over twenty years and know just alittle bit on how to operate a big truck efficiently. which i doubt you have ever have. second, no patent exists on this technology since it was discovered back on the early 1900's, and third, where do you get your info on "the big fleets" getting 35% decrease in fuel consumption. BS if that were true then there wouldn't have been over 900 trucking co failures since the beginning of this tear alone. as far as the big companies getting on board with this, is paccar big enough for you. to ray drummond, the cost is minimal if you understand how it is done and feel able to build your own. $150 tops. the cost to operate the generator is excess voltage from your alternator and some distilled water and sodium hydroxide. | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 249 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 69.143.48.38 Rating: N/A |
I wrote "__. What the gullible don't "get" is that you shouldn't send $250 to somebody over the Internet who is promising to break the laws of physics!" __. Just so everyone understands, I never meant that to apply to anyone on this board. No, I'm sure no one here is "gullible". We only have people who are very intelligent, practical and highly experienced ... and if some don't have enough data to come to a fully-developed scientific conclusion, they will. | ||
| R.C.Bishop (Chuckllb)
Registered Member Username: Chuckllb Post Number: 315 Registered: 7-2006 Posted From: 4.240.213.243 Rating: N/A |
Lighten up Dave...might live longer without all that stress. Kinda like Garlic or Broccili... if it doesn't agree with you, leave it alone. FWIW, FF is pretty well respected on this board for "telling it like it is"...to him if no one else; but as one can see from the remarks following his, there seems to be some enthusiastic agreement. Over the years I have come to respect what FF says....and knows....and, for the most part, I for one, am very happy to have him as a long time contributor. He was very helpful in the construction of our coach and.....all of it came from this forum. RCB Thanx Fred....and thanx Ian for a great board. | ||
| Tom Caffrey (Pvcces)
Registered Member Username: Pvcces Post Number: 1216 Registered: 5-2001 Posted From: 65.74.72.93 Rating: N/A |
Dave, it seems to me that Fast Fred may have hit a nerve. When he does something like that, he is usually trying to get someone to think. Occaisionally, someone takes exception to it. I doubt that he was trying to anger you. His experience might surprise you, if you don't already know his background. I think that he has helped us a lot. For what it's worth. Tom Caffrey PD4106-2576 Suncatcher Ketchikan, Alaska | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 408 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 208.100.193.191 Rating: N/A |
"where do you get your info on "the big fleets" getting 35% decrease in fuel consumption." The big fleets (if you bother to read the Independant Owners and Operators magazine ) noticed a fuel use DIFFERENCE between individual drivers of 35%.This months publication. Not a saving , just a DIFFERENCE . Some are light foot and some are lead foots. FF | ||
| Kyle Brandt (Kyle4501)
Registered Member Username: Kyle4501 Post Number: 435 Registered: 9-2004 Posted From: 65.23.106.193 Rating: N/A |
Snake oil has been around for years, & just as in the past, it is up to the consumer to sort the shineola from the sh**. I know several owner operators that had to give it all back to the bank. It is tough to run a business - especially these days, but if you look at it carefully, they made poor decisions, like financing chrome, signing contracts that didn't allow more $$ for rising fuel costs, skipping maintence, etc. I'm curious as to why I haven't seen reoprts endorsing Hydroxy Gas from the big & credible research institutions. I mean if an an owner operator for over twenty years who knows just alittle bit on how to operate a big truck efficiently can get such great results . . . I'd also like a reasonable explanination as to why the auto makers aren't utilizing it. Interesting to see how bio-diesel evolved from the perfect drop in solution with no problems or side effects to what it is now. Also interesting is the silence concerning the limited tank life & other less than favorable characteristics. | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 250 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 69.143.48.38 Rating: N/A |
Kyle Brandt wrote "I'd also like a reasonable explanination as to why the auto makers aren't utilizing it." __. That's a very big factor. 1 MPG would be worth a billion $$$ to GM - between CAFE standards, gas guzzler taxes, and what it would mean to their market penetration. I'm sure that there were GM engineers who'd gone to a different engineering school than GM's president and who had parked in their bosses' parking places in the '80's who were assigned to look at this technology. And I'm sure that they were *very motivated* to find _something_ of value and get some respect for their wounded careers. But when all was said and done, they had to "walk the walk of shame" and admit that they too had found that you can't put one in and take two out. | ||
| FAST FRED (Fast_fred)
Registered Member Username: Fast_fred Post Number: 410 Registered: 10-2006 Posted From: 208.100.193.140 Rating: N/A |
That's a very big factor. 1 MPG would be worth a billion $$$ to GM - between CAFE standards, gas guzzler taxes, and what it would mean to their market penetration. One Mpg is a snap, as the ethanol content of the gas REDUCES the fuel milage by the percentage of the alcohol. 10% Archer Daniels Midlands subsadized crap , 10% less milage. But ADM has a big lobby as do the again rich corn farmers, so don't wait for the Dumbocrats in congress to help. Simply REMOVING the ethinol will probably add 10% to EVERY cars mileage , but cost lots to the States that charge taxes on gallons , even if they are only filler. Additionally we spend about 15% more in fuel to comply with the last 3% of the clean air regulations. Get the useless filler fuel out of our cars , and allow the free market to re chip existing cars and drop the US passenger car fuel use by 25%. But for congress, FF | ||
| Bruce Henderson (Oonrahnjay)
Registered Member Username: Oonrahnjay Post Number: 251 Registered: 8-2004 Posted From: 69.143.48.38 Rating: N/A |
__. Fred, you are exactly right in your understanding of how much a mess that government intrusion into our lives and economy has made to the vehicles that we depend on. (I worked with these regulations for motor vehicle manufacturers for over 30 years and I lived with them being imposed. It was clear to those of us where it was all going but Congre$$ just kept going right on down that golden road.) | ||
| Kevin Mossman (Ktmossman)
Registered Member Username: Ktmossman Post Number: 16 Registered: 9-2007 Posted From: 216.46.98.249 Rating: N/A |
I'm curious as to why people are so quick to dismiss this idea. The basic science behind it has been proven: 1. Hydrogen gas used as an fuel additive can boost engine performance, MPG, etc. 2. Brown's gas (HHO) can be generated from water through electric and/or chemical means. Those are facts which have been repeatedly proven in laboratory settings. The only thing that has not been proven (to my satisfaction anyway) is the ability to generate enough hydrogen "on demand" to make the whole concept viable. Not to dismiss those who insist that they have been successful, but all of the reports I have seen have A.) not shown improvement such that the "benefit" could not have come from some other means (throttle control, etc.) and B.) not been truly scientific in nature (controlled experiments in a lab with variables excluded.) That said, I think it is only a matter of time before someone DOES find a way to solve the "volume on demand" issue and make this a viable solution. And I would also note that MANY of the technological advances in the last 200 years have NOT come from the laboratories of those paid to find the answers. They have come from the "average Joe" tinkering in his garage, trying ideas that the "scientific establishment" has dismissed as laughable. | ||
| Kyle Brandt (Kyle4501)
Registered Member Username: Kyle4501 Post Number: 436 Registered: 9-2004 Posted From: 65.23.106.193 Rating: |
You might notice some things about those technological advances in the last 200 years that have NOT come from the laboratories - & that is they quickly caught on with the masses. Now look at 'Gasohol', another of those things that can be proven to work. Lots of ill side effects that the supporters don't want to talk about. Same for biodiesel & WVO. Might work for a few, but not for the masses. Again, those pesky side effects. Brown's gas has had plenty of time to prove itself & yet it still isn't common place. Do you think there might a reason - other than we're all just stupid? Remember 'producer gas'? It was used in europe during WWII - (The short version: engine ran off the smoke from a wood fire in a stove on the back of the vehicle.) The side effects carried a heavy price. The main reason we use the fuels we use is because they produce KNOWN results that are predictable. This is very important when designing engines & the supply chain. There is more to the fuel we use than the immediate, short term results. The free market usually sorts out the duds rather quickly. | ||
| Kevin Black (Kblackav8or)
Registered Member Username: Kblackav8or Post Number: 96 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 193.188.105.200 Rating: N/A |
I can buy diesel for about $1 a gallon. Only one slight problem - it's 7000 miles from the US. Somebody on another site did the math on what it takes to get any benefit...result? It only costs, you get so little while you add a much greater load on your alternator. Also the amount of water required to get the amount of hydrogen never seems to get mentioned. You have to convert a lot of water to get enough hydrogen for this to do anything useful. Save your money, buy some good tires and wax your bus and you will probably save more doing that then one of these dumb systems. Save with those silly vortex generators in the intake systems or magnets on fuel lines. If this was such a great idea, without any patent restrictions, it would be on everything just for the chance to improve CAFE standards. It is a loser so you will never see it in production vehicles. |
