In all fairness, I don’t think the OP is shilling for this device at all. The linked article is a neutral explanation of the process, and doesn’t claim “something for nothing”.
I’m no physicist, but the law of conservation of mass and energy comes to mind. No free lunch to be had using electrolyzed water to supplement gasoline using onboard electricity to do the job. Using solar cells to break down the water is another matter, but THAT process would be extremely inefficient. Not to mention dangerous (think Hindenburg).
It looks pretty suspect when the same poster hits every single thread about this issue while providing a link. A poster the other day made the comment that I should be a moderator. Nice compliment I guess but no thanks. Too time consuming and I’m not much of an internet nut unless it’s to look something up or dink around on Car Talk; my one site addiction.
Heck, I don’t forward jokes and only check my email about once a month.
However, if I was a moderator it would be a scorched earth policy when it comes to Tornados, gas from water gimmicks, Pulstar spark plugs, or any obvious scam being promoted. They would be gone in a nano-second.
I really think he is a Shill just for the physics comment about bumblebees. He is basically saying “But I don’t think Physics applies here, so why should it apply anywhere else?”
I here dealers are so flooded with big used SUVS that in some cases they aren’t taken anymore big SUVS as trade ins. I guess people on tight budgets are looking for a solution
Back in the early 80s I worked for a dealer in a moderate sized town. Gas at the time was over a buck a gallon; pretty steep for the times.
As an example to show how gullible people are, a “gas saving business” opened up about half a mile down the street from us. This hokey contraption was called a Monroe Fuel Saver and sold for about 40 bucks a pop; also pretty good cash for the times. This place actually sold enough of them to maintain a walk-in storefront business for almost a year. When someone complained their mileage did not improve they would simply stall endlessly, brush them off, and/or blame it on state of tune or whatever.
We had 4 or 5 people come into the shop wanting this bogus device looked at just out of curiosity or because it was causing a problem. Of course, there were a few who swore to heaven the device worked miracles in spite of being told it was a worthless expense.
This device was nothing more than a vacuum operated valve placed into the return line from the fuel pump (carburetors back then). It allegedly caused “excess gas to be routed back to the fuel tank” and “prevented the engine from receiving more gas than it needs”. Ha. I thought that was the purpose of a needle/seat and carburetor jets.
This company was done in when one of these units was installed on a gentleman’s car and led to very poor running and a brush-off. Unknown to the company selling this garbage the gentleman was a regular customer of ours who also owned the local radio station. After I removed this device and the car was running properly again the car owner made sure there was an editorial on the local news about it and the company closed.
Glad to hear it. I love exposes.
One a different note. Does anyone know of a forum where I can bring up issues and have them dealt with objectively without being subjected to insults and namecalling?
Thank you for taking me seriously and reading the article!
About the free lunch- isn’t that electricity already being produced and wasted? The alternator is always producing electricity. You’re just using the available electricity.
Honestly, do you honestly believe that bumblebee flight is not understood by physics? Were you educated in the early 30’s?? Were you went to school did they also teach Alchemy instead of Chemistry and Astrology instead of Astronomy?
I was simply trying to make a point. I’m looking for hard evidence. For instance someone suggested there was an article in Popular Mechanics debunking the idea that you could hook up a device to produce hydrogen by electolysis and use that hydrogen to improve your fuel economy. But, I still don’t know what year and month this article was printed. Does anyone else?
If there is hard evidence debunking this… I’d love to hear it.
“April 2008 Update: there is now a promotion running on the site, and it is temporarily available for $49 instead of $297 - as such, we recommend ordering sooner rather than later.”
this came from their website. if they had to ‘give’ 200 dollars off the regular price, doesn’t THAT say something about the demad for this 'revolutionary technology"?
if it was SO good, for $47 wouldn’t all the auto manufacturers have jumped on this to increase their fuel efficiency?
Always amazing that thousands of automotive engineers, billions of dollars in still on-going research to squeeze every last bit of energy out of gasoline or design of alternative fuels and some clown running a boiler room operation with no address claims to have invented a product that will increase mileage, burn cleaner, or whatever.
Set up a website cheap and start hustling.
As I said, this water into fuel thing has been around for almost a 100 years. How much R and D time do you want?
The point that you made was that you do not know enough about physics to understand any experiments that would show if the system worked or not. Therefore you are the exact target audience for this scam.
Of all the responses I’ve gotten this one makes the most sense: The idea that the amount of energy needed to produce hydrogen by electroylsis would take too much energy. That any gains you might experience would be wiped out by the increase in power needed to power the electroylsis.
Now that (That any gains you might experience would be wiped out by the increase in power needed to power the electroylsis.) is an objective statement w/o insults, insinuation or name-calling.
-I’d still like to see someone do an experiment and actually report whether or not they get an increase in fuel economy when introducing hydrogen produced by electroylsis. Based on what I’ve seen and read, nobody has. I looked at the Popular Mechanics site mentioned and the experiment they tried was water injection. NOT whether or not they get an increase in fuel economy when introducing hydrogen produced by electroylsis.
I looked at the Popular Mechanics site mentioned and the experiment they tried was water injection. NOT whether or not they get an increase in fuel economy when introducing hydrogen produced by electroylsis.
-I’d still like to see someone do an experience and actually report whether or not they get an increase in fuel economy when introducing hydrogen produced by electroylsis. Based on what I’ve seen and read, nobody has.
I think people are so desperate to get more MPG out of their cars these days that they are willing to forgo logic and science on the off chance that these things could work…like it’s some big conspiracy by the oil companies, not allowing car manufacturers to use this “technology” when they make cars.
Well, hydrogen isn’t quite as dangerous as people think. Keep in mind that the casualties on the H’burg were from burning Diesel fuel, burning envelope (canvas painted with what was essentially solid rocket fuel), and structure crashing to the ground. Without hydrogen to provide buoyancy, I guess you could say the hydrogen fire contributed to the last cause…
