What happened to all the success stories? [Archive]

SmartScarecrow

02-13-2009, 08:38 AM

About 6 months ago, there were daily reports of increased MPG from experimenters.

"I put a pair of SS spoons in a Mason jar, and PRESTO! 40% increase"

As cells got better, the success stories diminished.

Zero dreamed of getting 4.5 MMW.

Today Zero is silent with much higher efficiency cells. Why?

Do we need to go back to lousy cells to see increases?

Is anyone getting good results with 5-10 LPM?

What is not going on?

BoyntonStu

I think a lot of what you have noticed is that people are becoming a lot more sophisticated in their data acquisition and analysis ... I am doing some very interesting things with 5-10 lpm, but not in automotive applications ... too many are tying the ultimate success or failure of HHO production to getting mileage gains in automobiles and are ignoring a number of other valuable uses ... there are immediate benefits to using HHO in stationary engines as a fuel economy booster ... in cases where the engine runs at a steady RPM, our primitive methods of metering in the fuel is able to work and work pretty well ... but without a very significant leap in the technology of getting the gas metered in a precise way, and injected into the engine at just the right time, meaningful results in automobiles will always be spotty ... this is just my opinion, not to be confused with hard scientific fact ...

Gary Diamond

02-13-2009, 08:58 AM

mytoyotasucks

02-13-2009, 11:04 AM

im still working on mine.

but i have seen good gains, at around 20 amp - going to dry cell now.

but for 5LPM i would need 3 of my wet cells and about 60 amps.

I have recently put one of my wet cells on my nephews car - Audi with a 2.5L strait 5(with a O2 extender), but havent seen the same MPG gain or power gain as my 89 caddy with a 4.5L V8.

same LPM output but not the same MPG gain, anybody know why??

H2OPWR

02-13-2009, 01:35 PM

About 6 months ago, there were daily reports of increased MPG from experimenters.

Is anyone getting good results with 5-10 LPM?

What is not going on?

BoyntonStu

I am attempting to have large volumes of HHO to try.

Stu, I beleive that much of what was reported was nonsence before. MPG gains were made by many but not to the extent that were being reported. Much of the problem I beleive is in that most of the devices installed simply were not of the quality to operate more than a couple of months without leaking and overheating problems. With the advent of cheaper gas most have not tried again. Only a few hardcore HHO enthusiasts remain. We are all mostly trying to make improvements in the devices. I got nice gains when I had a device installed but was using HHO on a vehicle that was easy to improve. Automobiles vary on adaptability. I beleive the Frontier will be harder to make the same gains because of the much tighter control the ECU has on air/fuel ratios

Larry

BoyntonStu

02-13-2009, 02:25 PM

I am attempting to have large volumes of HHO to try.

Stu, I beleive that much of what was reported was nonsence before. MPG gains were made by many but not to the extent that were being reported. Much of the problem I beleive is in that most of the devices installed simply were not of the quality to operate more than a couple of months without leaking and overheating problems. With the advent of cheaper gas most have not tried again. I got nice gains when I had a device installed but was using HHO on a vehicle that was easy to improve. Automobiles vary on adaptability. Only a few hardcore HHO enthusiasts remain. We are all mostly trying to make improvements in the devices. I beleive the Frontier will be harder to make the same gains because of the much tighter control the ECU has on air/fuel ratios

Larry

"I got nice gains when I had a device installed but was using HHO on a vehicle that was easy to improve. Automobiles vary on adaptability."

What car? What device? Amps?

Before/after MPG

What was the length of time or miles for the improvement?

BoyntonStu

H2OPWR

02-13-2009, 04:04 PM

"I got nice gains when I had a device installed but was using HHO on a vehicle that was easy to improve. Automobiles vary on adaptability."

What car? What device? Amps?

Before/after MPG

What was the length of time or miles for the improvement?

BoyntonStu

Stu, I posted everything in this thread a couple of weeks ago when you asked for the information.

http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=2359

Larry

chris1200

02-13-2009, 04:24 PM

BoyntonStu

02-13-2009, 04:38 PM

Stu, I posted everything in this thread a couple of weeks ago when you asked for the information.

http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=2359

Larry

"I found nice gains that lasted over the entire period of time. I was just using an ineffecient open bath type design. I wish I would have joined a forum or used video or something else to document the mileage"

Nice gains; the mileage went from _____ to ______?

I was just using an ineffecient open bath type design

Number of plates, sizes, V, A?

BoyntonStu

BoyntonStu

Painless

02-13-2009, 04:48 PM

I believe every car has it's own ideal gasoline:air:hho ratio and depends mostly on its displacement, compression and timing. I also think this "balance" does not require too much hho and that any excess will actually reduce MPG. Re-test your low yield generators and compare ;)

I also believe that some are getting gains with smaller outputs due to the fact that their cells are less efficient and providing a significant amount of water vapour to the intake. Naturally, this will also increase power. The more efficient generators that are putting out higher LPM's should, hopefully, produce less water vapour.

Makes a good case for accompanying HHO with a separate water injection system.

BoyntonStu

02-13-2009, 05:09 PM

I also believe that some are getting gains with smaller outputs due to the fact that their cells are less efficient and providing a significant amount of water vapour to the intake. Naturally, this will also increase power. The more efficient generators that are putting out higher LPM's should, hopefully, produce less water vapour.

Makes a good case for accompanying HHO with a separate water injection system.

If water vapor is a positive additive, why not use less than 7 cells per 14 V and make some steam?

Why do it separately?

BTW If what you said is correct, then HHO (water) really works!:>)

Air restriction definitely increase MPG about the percent HHO is claimed to do.

28 tO 31-33 in my 2001 ZX2. I am 100% certain after running that way for 1,000 miles.

BoyntonStu

Painless

02-13-2009, 05:17 PM

If water vapor is a positive additive, why not use less than 7 cells per 14 V and make some steam?

Why do it separately?

BTW If what you said is correct, then HHO (water) really works!:>)

Air restriction definitely increase MPG about the percent HHO is claimed to do.

28 tO 31-33 in my 2001 ZX2. I am 100% certain after running that way for 1,000 miles.

BoyntonStu

I don't see any issues with creating steam with the HHO, however, we know from experience that the vapour carries KOH/NaOH with it which is bad for our aluminum parts.

Additionally, adding a methanol or denatured alcohol to the water for injection in a 50/50 ratio apparently has further benefits.

Russ.

BoyntonStu

02-13-2009, 05:45 PM

I don't see any issues with creating steam with the HHO, however, we know from experience that the vapour carries KOH/NaOH with it which is bad for our aluminum parts.

Additionally, adding a methanol or denatured alcohol to the water for injection in a 50/50 ratio apparently has further benefits.

Russ.

A little vinegar along with alcohol/water in the bubbler would neutralize the gas.

BoyntonStu

cully

02-13-2009, 05:50 PM

I'm still experimenting with my cell i have had gains with the cell

see the "efficiency math" thread

i want to build a bubbler cleanser that removes the KOH carry over before finally installing in my car.
so I'm now experimenting with carbon granules as a filter element to remove the KOH

but as always R&D money comes after the household bills
but i do like a good skip diving session....

found some good abs filter housings :D

Gary Diamond

02-13-2009, 05:54 PM

A little vinegar along with alcohol/water in the bubbler would neutralize the gas.

BoyntonStu

You mean take out the harmfull koh that woud harm the engine?

H2OPWR

02-13-2009, 06:13 PM

"I found nice gains that lasted over the entire period of time. I was just using an ineffecient open bath type design. I wish I would have joined a forum or used video or something else to document the mileage"

Nice gains; the mileage went from _____ to ______?

I was just using an ineffecient open bath type design

Number of plates, sizes, V, A?

BoyntonStu

BoyntonStu

Stu, All the MPG gains were posted in the other thread. The cell was on the jeep for most of 1 winter and until I replaced the Jeep last August. I went through several different designs using different plate numbers and sizes. I kept the amp draw around 30 amps +- at automotive voltage and only used baking soda. It was not until I joined this forum and really started researching that I found most of what I know now. One of the techs told me about HHO and I just followed his advice. I also never measured output or temps, at that time I did not see any reason to. I do know that it was hot enough to melt Schedule 40 PVC once. I had to switch to Schedule 80 CPVC to make it hold up. I also think that most of the folks that tried probably did not have the insight to measure everything either. I did not even know about neutral plates at the time.

Larry

Painless

02-13-2009, 06:20 PM

A little vinegar along with alcohol/water in the bubbler would neutralize the gas.

BoyntonStu

Stu,

From my own experiments, back when smith03jetta first brought up this issue, I tried a bubbler full of vinegar and and it did not neutralise the KOH. I still found the tell tale white traces in my intake. Using an airstone to make finer bubbles may assist here.

The only truly successful method that I have employed to date is my cleansing bubbler design, although I believe that is only useful up to about 2 LPM. Anymore output than that, we would need to increase the effectiveness of the condenser by using a copper or stainless steel tube in it's place as I believe you suggested.

Russ.

ridelong

02-13-2009, 06:23 PM

BoyntonStu

02-13-2009, 08:49 PM

BoyntonStu,

I posted my gains in testimonials, 8/15/08. Nothing else to say.

I added a temperature feedback circuit and winter heating element, and posted the info in other sections of this forum.

Russ

2003 ford ranger 2.3 liter, 5 spd standard. Went from 22.4 to 28.1 mpg.

1/2 gal. distilled, 1 1/2 tsp potassium hydroxide, 2 sets of 6 (+nnnn-) 316 ss plates 2.5 x 4.5 inch, 0.068 spacing

First time running on the intake side. Bottle dosen't seem to get hot, actually did better on the other side of the butterfly (37.5%).

I jacked the amps from 4 - 5 amps to 7 - 8. If I don't do better at next fillup, will move back to upstream of the butterfly.

My stock 2.3 2002 5 spd Ranger gets 26 MPH.

BoyntonStu

SmartScarecrow

02-13-2009, 09:23 PM

2003 ford ranger 2.3 liter, 5 spd standard. Went from 22.4 to 28.1 mpg.

1/2 gal. distilled, 1 1/2 tsp potassium hydroxide, 2 sets of 6 (+nnnn-) 316 ss plates 2.5 x 4.5 inch, 0.068 spacing

First time running on the intake side. Bottle dosen't seem to get hot, actually did better on the other side of the butterfly (37.5%).

I jacked the amps from 4 - 5 amps to 7 - 8. If I don't do better at next fillup, will move back to upstream of the butterfly.

My stock 2.3 2002 5 spd Ranger gets 26 MPH.

BoyntonStu

one of the EBN guys, d3adp001, did some pretty extensive testing with a steam generation device that used waste exhaust heat to make the steam ... he was able to achieve some pretty impressive mileage improvements with his device in a GM V8 engine ... there are so many better ways to get steam than electrolysis that I have serious philosophical problems about heading down that path ...

there does seem to be a point with each vehicle where you hit a sweet spot ... its usually right around 1 lpm per 1000cc of engine displacement, but some have report hitting it using a lot less HHO than this ... there is also an upper limit wall that most who experiment with higher volumes run into ... but those who push past that wall indicate that there is another useful threshold when you get to about 20% of the total fuel consumed being HHO ...

a lot is yet unknown ... most of what we think we know is based on very limited evidence and amateurish data acquisition ... so basically, its our best guess only ... your mileage may vary is the moral ...

Painless

02-13-2009, 09:24 PM

My stock 2.3 2002 5 spd Ranger gets 26 MPH.

BoyntonStu

Driving style, perhaps... or quality of gas?

My Ram averages 16-17 mpg when I fill up at BP, if I fill up at valero I'm lucky to get 15.

Suffice to say, I always get my gas at BP.

coffeeachiever

02-15-2009, 09:47 PM

I think I have reached a burnout point with this. It is now my wife that is pushing me to accomplish something with it. She has a lot of faith in me, God bless her.
I am installing my freshly rebuilt and slightly improved generator on her Jeep this week. I am trying for the first time Shane's EFIE and PWM. I am hoping to see some improvement in milage. It obviously won't be what I had envisioned over a year ago when I first began researching HHO.
The bright side of this? I have found two other technologies that will either compliment HHO or replace it all together. I never would have known about either had it not been for HHO.
The first is one that we have discussed already. Plasma spark plugs and the VexUs circuit. It seems that it accomplishes what we are trying to do with HHO. What is unclear is if it and HHO will compliment each other.
The other technology is one I haven't seen discussed here, but seems to be very promising. It's the vaporizing carburetor.
Appearantly, those fabled carbys that achieved 100-200 mpg are real. Seems they've been around for 80+ years. They work by vaporizing the gasoline before it is ignited. Makes sense doesn't it?
The issue with them now is that the additives in the gas nowdays are designed to gum up a carb of this type. It's a dirty trick, yes, but we expect that from our gas producers, don't we?
Point is...Im going to install this HHO generator on the wife's Jeep. I hope to see some appreciable gains, but if I do or don't I believe it's time to move on to complimentary technologies.
I believe in HHO. I believe that water holds the key to our energy needs. I also believe that we have to do something in the interim, until we figure it out, to eliminate our need of foriegn oil. With the economy now failing, it has become an issue of national security.

chris1200

02-16-2009, 08:50 PM

The other technology is one I haven't seen discussed here, but seems to be very promising. It's the vaporizing carburetor.
Appearantly, those fabled carbys that achieved 100-200 mpg are real. Seems they've been around for 80+ years. They work by vaporizing the gasoline before it is ignited. Makes sense doesn't it?

I have done some research and totally agree with you, there are many patented designs. This is something we need to look into...Allan Wallace wrote a book explaining in detail how this old technology works.

BoyntonStu

02-16-2009, 09:04 PM

I have done some research and totally agree with you, there are many patented designs. This is something we need to look into...Allan Wallace wrote a book explaining in detail how this old technology works.

I disagree.

Modern Fuel Injection vaporizes the gas better than any carb ever did.

The 60-80 MPG carb is an urban legend.

Patent protected ideas don't have to work in order to be approved.

BoyntonStu

Energy is never free. Did you ever price a sail?

Farmer Bobb

02-16-2009, 09:28 PM

My latest attemt with O2 extenders and a poor mans EFEI on my Plymouth Laser got 27 mpg down from 29 ish but not as bad as the first test of 26mph. I hate fuel injection, O2 sensors and MAF controlers, but I'll keep on trying. I try something different. Build the stuff to make it run better and maybe get my old VeeWmax out. AHH a carb. Have Fun! Bobb

chris1200

02-19-2009, 07:29 PM

I disagree.

Modern Fuel Injection vaporizes the gas better than any carb ever did.

The 60-80 MPG carb is an urban legend.

Patent protected ideas don't have to work in order to be approved.

BoyntonStu

Energy is never free. Did you ever price a sail?

So BoyntonStu, I guess you have build one of those vaporizer carburators and tested it on your car...and compare it to your fuel injection. :rolleyes:

Your so called "Efficient Modern Fuel Injection" will actually pressurize the fuel to such a high level it will never vaporize. It will push gasoline through a nozzle (injector) in order to a spray.

Do some research...:cool:

BoyntonStu

02-19-2009, 07:37 PM

So BoyntonStu, I guess you have build one of those vaporizer carburators and tested it on your car...and compare it to your fuel injection. :rolleyes:

Your so called "Efficient Modern Fuel Injection" will actually pressurize the fuel to such a high level it will never vaporize. It will push gasoline through a nozzle (injector) in order to a spray.

Do some research...:cool:

OK,

Let's see your A/B comparison or any comparison experiment.

A high pressure spray vaporizes better than a vacuum spray.

High pressure to atmosphere, is how a can of spray paint works.

Sucking on a can of paint will not vaporize it as well.

BoyntonStu

BoyntonStu

02-19-2009, 08:13 PM

My 1926 Model T gets better gas milage than my 2006 CTS...... I wonder what the model T would do with FI....

WIKI
Fuel injection systems have evolved significantly since the mid 1980s. Current systems provide an accurate, reliable and cost-effective method of metering fuel and providing maximum engine efficiency with clean exhaust emissions, which is why EFI systems have replaced carburetors in the marketplace. EFI is becoming more reliable and less expensive through widespread usage. At the same time, carburetors are becoming less available, and more expensive. Even marine applications are adopting EFI as reliability improves. Virtually all internal combustion engines, including motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and outdoor power equipment, may eventually use some form of fuel injection.

Weight of each?

Tire diameter, pressure, and tread width?

Speed/Acceleration comparison?

Apples and Oranges?

AFAIK with FI the MPG would be better.

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-19-2009, 08:41 PM

My 1926 Model T gets better gas milage than my 2006 CTS...... I wonder what the model T would do with FI....

Maybe blow up

mytoyotasucks

02-20-2009, 12:07 AM

Well I do not like fuel injection in general, but both of my cars have it, one throttlebody and one multiport. My Throttle body gives me way less grief, just to the OBDII on my other car, stupid computer = more reliable,a few sensors dont work, and it will still run, OBDII(smart computer) relies on sensors way too much, one sensor goes bad and it doesnt run. So which one is really stupid?

But i have been working on an diff carb for HHO, the carb does not run with liquid fuel, needs gases only. but havnt bruilt enough gens to produce a good amount of LPM, but will get there.

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 12:13 AM

Gary Diamond

02-20-2009, 12:34 AM

"The best description I have seen for a carb is "a barely controlled fuel leak" and that sums up carburetors."

http://www.f150forum.com/showthread.php?t=16371

Interesting thread.

BoyntonStu

I guess that says it all LOL

Dave Nowlin

02-20-2009, 12:43 AM

My Suzuki King Quad 4-wheeler has fuel injection and about 60 h.p.

Dave Nowlin

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 06:26 AM

I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue about this. Here are the facts and I will leave it at that.
Fuel injection sprays liquid gasoline. It does not voporize. Period.
Standard carbs are slobbering Neanderthals that are horribly inefficient at best.
Vaporizing, high milage carbs are not an urban legend and they are being built today. The obstacle that has to be overcome is filtering the additives in the gasoline that are added to prevent vaporization.
Do some research. If you choose to swallow what Big Brother is cramming down your throat without doing your homework, then that is your choice. Just don't cram it down my throat because it turns my stomach.
It amazes me how much one person tries to step on free thought in this open forum designed to promote alternative thinking.
All great truths go through three stages:
First they are ridiculed (Stu)
Then they are violently opposed
Then they are accepted as self evident
I can't remember who said that, but they're wise words.

chris1200

02-20-2009, 06:29 AM

OK,

Let's see your A/B comparison or any comparison experiment.

A high pressure spray vaporizes better than a vacuum spray. :confused: :confused: :confused:

High pressure to atmosphere, is how a can of spray paint works.

Sucking on a can of paint will not vaporize it as well.

BoyntonStu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Isotherms of an ideal gasThe ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas, first stated by Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron in 1834. The law is derived from the fact, that in the ideal state of any gas a given number of its "particles" occupy the same volume, and that volume changes are inverse to pressure changes and linear to temperature changes.

The state of an amount of gas is determined by its pressure, volume, and temperature according to the equation:

pV=nRT

where

p is the absolute pressure of the gas,
V is the volume of the gas,
n is the number of moles of gas,
R is the universal gas constant,
T is the absolute temperature.

1- Your statement is wrong. In very simple words the Gas Law states that under stronger vacuum more liquid converts to gas and that under high pressure gas converts to liquid.

2- The spray can is a whole different scenario from a fuel system. A spray can pressurizes gaseous and highly volatile solvents to keep them in liquid state together with paint or lubricant at room temperature. When sprayed and released to atmospheric pressure, depending on its properties, some will stay liquid other will turn gaseous.

3- And we are not talking here about spraying, this is about turning liquid gasoline into gaseous gasoline for better combustion.

Think about this:
What happens when you lightup a fire to liquid gasoline? It just burns slower
What happens when you lightup a fire to gaseous gasoline? Boom! It explodes :eek:

This happens because octane molecules have more space between them (in gaseous state) allowing the hidrocarbon bond to be exposed to OXIGEN AND FAST IGNITION.

How do you produce more gaseous gasoline (according to the Gas Law)? Using vacuum and heat.

This is what the 100-200 MPG carb does...

4- The Vaporizer Carburator is totally different from a STOCK Carburator. Yes, a STOCK Carburator is less efficient than Fuel Injection. This happens because, back in time, Global Warming and Fuel Price was not a concern, so automotive industry R&D was not seeking fuel burning efficiency, instead they were busy building muscle cars. Modern World reality has pushed fuel injection to be a bit more efficient.

chris1200

02-20-2009, 07:14 AM

By the way, those 200 MPG were achieved on V-8 engines...

Painless

02-20-2009, 07:33 AM

Purely on the subject of vapourising gasoline:

From my own experiments, it seems that not even the oil companies additives can suppress vapourising gasoline with a transducer. A cool fine mist is produced which burns with a beautifull "poof" leaving no traces of gasoline or other matter on the containers walls.

Shame we can't just place some heavy duty transducers in the inlet manifold, right under the injector nozzles.

Russ.

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 08:32 AM

By the way, those 200 MPG were achieved on V-8 engines...

Source?

BoyntonStu

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 09:00 AM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Isotherms of an ideal gasThe ideal gas law is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas, first stated by Benoît Paul Émile Clapeyron in 1834. The law is derived from the fact, that in the ideal state of any gas a given number of its "particles" occupy the same volume, and that volume changes are inverse to pressure changes and linear to temperature changes.

The state of an amount of gas is determined by its pressure, volume, and temperature according to the equation:

pV=nRT

where

p is the absolute pressure of the gas,
V is the volume of the gas,
n is the number of moles of gas,
R is the universal gas constant,
T is the absolute temperature.

1- Your statement is wrong. In very simple words the Gas Law states that under stronger vacuum more liquid converts to gas and that under high pressure gas converts to liquid.

2- The spray can is a whole different scenario from a fuel system. A spray can pressurizes gaseous and highly volatile solvents to keep them in liquid state together with paint or lubricant at room temperature. When sprayed and released to atmospheric pressure, depending on its properties, some will stay liquid other will turn gaseous.

3- And we are not talking here about spraying, this is about turning liquid gasoline into gaseous gasoline for better combustion.

Think about this:
What happens when you lightup a fire to liquid gasoline? It just burns slower
What happens when you lightup a fire to gaseous gasoline? Boom! It explodes :eek:

This happens because octane molecules have more space between them (in gaseous state) allowing the hidrocarbon bond to be exposed to OXIGEN AND FAST IGNITION.

How do you produce more gaseous gasoline (according to the Gas Law)? Using vacuum and heat.

This is what the 100-200 MPG carb does...

4- The Vaporizer Carburator is totally different from a STOCK Carburator. Yes, a STOCK Carburator is less efficient than Fuel Injection. This happens because, back in time, Global Warming and Fuel Price was not a concern, so automotive industry R&D was not seeking fuel burning efficiency, instead they were busy building muscle cars. Modern World reality has pushed fuel injection to be a bit more efficient.

When I taught Boyle's Gas Law to pre-flight students in Aviation Science, I gave them a very easy way to remember it:

Penis and Vagina over Testicles. Now, you will never forget it. LOL

PV/T =K.

You have demonstrated that a little knowledge is not enough to understand the whole picture.

Using your words "volume changes are inverse to pressure changes"

EXACTLY!

In a carburetor at sea level, the liquid gasoline goes from atmospheric pressure 14.7 PSI to engine vacuum; assume 0 PSI.

Fuel injection starts with gasoline under high pressure; certainly more than 14.7 PSI; say 100 PSI.

Therefore the DIFFERENCE between the engine vacuum and the FI pressure is the pressure CHANGE.

Read your sentence again: "volume changes are inverse to pressure changes".

Which method of delivering liquid gas to an engine allows for the largest pressure CHANGE; FI or the carb?

(Incidentally, atmospheric pressure is the weight of our atmosphere above us at the measurement point on earth. At 18,000 feet altitude, the pressure is 1/2 that of sea level.)

Summing up, you equations are correct, but your interpretation of them needs a little tune up.

BoyntonStu

Boyle's law (sometimes referred to as the Boyle-Mariotte law) is one of several gas laws and a special case of the ideal gas law. Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system.[1][2] The law was named after chemist and physicist Robert Boyle, who published the original law in 1662. Earlier, in 1660 [3] he had sent his findings in a letter to Charles Boyle, 3rd Viscount Dungarvan, eldest son to Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of Burlington, 2nd Earl of Cork, and 1st Baron Clifford of Lanesborough. The law itself can be stated as follows:

For a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, P [pressure] and V [volume] are inversely proportional (while one increases, the other decreases).[2]

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 09:40 AM

Source?

BoyntonStu

Start with keelynet.com. There is a source for the 500+ patents for vaporizing carbs. Do a google search. There is a plethora of information at your fingertips. That's the beauty of mass communication.

People told me I couldn't build a device to crack water. I did it, as most of us here have. It's only complicated until you learn it. Now it seems elementary.
I'm now telling people I'm building plasma spark plugs and might build an extremely high milage carburetor. Now they just want to know when so they can have it.
It is the vapor from gasoline that burns, not the gasoline itself. You know that though. Everybody knows that. Now, how much vapor can a gallon of gas produce before it dissipates? A LOT!
You go ahead and keep restricting your air flow. That seems to make you happy. When I triple my gas milage I'll freely share with you and the rest of the forum how it's done. Then we can keep our hard earned dollars in the United States as well as reduce our carbon footprint.

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 10:11 AM

Start with keelynet.com. There is a source for the 500+ patents for vaporizing carbs. Do a google search. There is a plethora of information at your fingertips. That's the beauty of mass communication.

People told me I couldn't build a device to crack water. I did it, as most of us here have. It's only complicated until you learn it. Now it seems elementary.
I'm now telling people I'm building plasma spark plugs and might build an extremely high milage carburetor. Now they just want to know when so they can have it.
It is the vapor from gasoline that burns, not the gasoline itself. You know that though. Everybody knows that. Now, how much vapor can a gallon of gas produce before it dissipates? A LOT!
You go ahead and keep restricting your air flow. That seems to make you happy. When I triple my gas milage I'll freely share with you and the rest of the forum how it's done. Then we can keep our hard earned dollars in the United States as well as reduce our carbon footprint.

I have 6 Patents.

There are thousands of Patents issued that have not been built or that don't have to operate.

A Patent is an idea, not a working prototype.

Show us a single example of a working carburetor that actually produced more than 50 MPG in a car.

BoyntonStu

chris1200

02-20-2009, 10:17 AM

When I taught Boyle's Gas Law to pre-flight students in Aviation Science, I gave them a very easy way to remember it:

Penis and Vagina over Testicles. Now, you will never forget it. LOL

PV/T =K.

You have demonstrated that a little knowledge is not enough to understand the whole picture.

Using your words "volume changes are inverse to pressure changes"

EXACTLY!

In a carburetor at sea level, the liquid gasoline goes from atmospheric pressure 14.7 PSI to engine vacuum; assume 0 PSI.

Fuel injection starts with gasoline under high pressure; certainly more than 14.7 PSI; say 100 PSI.

Therefore the DIFFERENCE between the engine vacuum and the FI pressure is the pressure CHANGE.

Read your sentence again: "volume changes are inverse to pressure changes".

Which method of delivering liquid gas to an engine allows for the largest pressure CHANGE; FI or the carb?

(Incidentally, atmospheric pressure is the weight of our atmosphere above us at the measurement point on earth. At 18,000 feet altitude, the pressure is 1/2 that of sea level.)

Summing up, you equations are correct, but your interpretation of them needs a little tune up.

BoyntonStu

Boyle's law (sometimes referred to as the Boyle-Mariotte law) is one of several gas laws and a special case of the ideal gas law. Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas, if the temperature is kept constant within a closed system.[1][2] The law was named after chemist and physicist Robert Boyle, who published the original law in 1662. Earlier, in 1660 [3] he had sent his findings in a letter to Charles Boyle, 3rd Viscount Dungarvan, eldest son to Richard Boyle, 1st Earl of Burlington, 2nd Earl of Cork, and 1st Baron Clifford of Lanesborough. The law itself can be stated as follows:

For a fixed amount of an ideal gas kept at a fixed temperature, P [pressure] and V [volume] are inversely proportional (while one increases, the other decreases).[2]

1st - My Source: Books and internet... Again you need to do some research before posting without knowledge.
2nd - Your interpretation does not need a tuneup, it needs a complete rebuild :p

You have just confirmed what I said in the first place:

Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas

Pressure goes up -> Volume down
Pressure goes down -> Volume up (expansion, gas production, more space between molecules, less density, more vapour, you name it, etc...)

It's plain and simple, why is it so difficult for you to understand that?

The net pressure change its completely irrelevant. That will not change the physical properties of matter. A substance will boil (convert from liquid to gas) at a given pressure and temperature. Thats 101 class...

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 10:57 AM

1st - My Source: Books and internet... Again you need to do some research before posting without knowledge.
2nd - Your interpretation does not need a tuneup, it needs a complete rebuild :p

You have just confirmed what I said in the first place:

Boyle's law describes the inversely proportional relationship between the absolute pressure and volume of a gas

Pressure goes up -> Volume down
Pressure goes down -> Volume up (expansion, gas production, more space between molecules, less density, more vapour, you name it, etc...)

It's plain and simple, why is it so difficult for you to understand that?

The net pressure change its completely irrelevant. That will not change the physical properties of matter. A substance will boil (convert from liquid to gas) at a given pressure and temperature. Thats 101 class...

Whatever floats your boat.

BoyntonStu

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 11:34 AM

Whatever floats your boat.

BoyntonStu

You too Stu. One day you might figure out that you don't know everything and the Amoeba cell doesn't do everything better than what anyone else can build.
My ex wife liked to argue with every idea I had too. That's what makes her an ex wife.
If your intent is to deter people from exploring certain technologies, your efforts are having a parodoxysmal effect. I only get more determined to prove your obstinate a$$ wrong.

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 12:54 PM

You too Stu. One day you might figure out that you don't know everything and the Amoeba cell doesn't do everything better than what anyone else can build.
My ex wife liked to argue with every idea I had too. That's what makes her an ex wife.
If your intent is to deter people from exploring certain technologies, your efforts are having a parodoxysmal effect. I only get more determined to prove your obstinate a$$ wrong.

I am not against investigation.

I have never claimed that the Amoeba Cell does better than anyone else can build.

However, I claim that the Amoeba Cell is the smallest 6x6 cell built to date and possibly the most inexpensive and most efficient use of Stainless Steel.

That the single hole square plate, square gasket is the simplest design to make and to assemble..

That Stainless 6-32 screws are smaller and cheaper than 1/4 - 20.

That the Amoeba Cell has an MMW between 5.5 and 6.5.

I also claim that the Snapple Reservoir/ Bubbler/ Cooler/ Heater / Leak Detector/ Mount; using the Amoeba: no adhesive, no heat, no threaded tubing connector is the simplest, most inexpensive, compact design made to date.

BoyntonStu

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 02:32 PM

I do not dispute the uniqueness of the Amoeba. It's a neat device, I have said so before. You are obviously proud of it as evidenced by your relentless promotion of it. I thought you were selling it for awhile.
My point is that the world of energy is not limited to what you think you know. Your comments definitely reek of cynacism and disapproval of anything that goes against what is formally taught. You seem to think what Big Brother provides for us is the best we can do. I am absolutely sick of hearing the same "facts" regurgitated back to me over and over when I know we can do better.

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 03:10 PM

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 04:39 PM

"when I know we can do better."

Is this a statement of your belief, or is it your knowledge based on facts?

BoyntonStu

What I believe is a fact to me. Same rule applies to everyone. That is a fact.

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 05:46 PM

What I believe is a fact to me. Same rule applies to everyone. That is a fact.

Too bad, that rule will keep you from learning about true facts.

A logical rule accepts well established definitions.

"I believe that there are 1,000 jelly beans in the jar" is not the same as "I know that there are 1,000 jelly beans in the jar, I counted them".

In the 4th grade I learned the difference between "I feel" and I think".

My teacher said, "You feel with your hands and you think with your mind".

Lots of folks are confused about what they believe and what they know.

Especially in the HHO world, when folks say that something works or is possible (their belief), and what they know for a fact to be true.

BoyntonStu

BTW I roast my own coffee. Is coffee important to you too?

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 06:39 PM

Too bad, that rule will keep you from learning about true facts.

A logical rule accepts well established definitions.

"I believe that there are 1,000 jelly beans in the jar" is not the same as "I know that there are 1,000 jelly beans in the jar, I counted them".

In the 4th grade I learned the difference between "I feel" and I think".

My teacher said, "You feel with your hands and you think with your mind".

Lots of folks are confused about what they believe and what they know.

Especially in the HHO world, when folks say that something works or is possible (their belief), and what they know for a fact to be true.

BoyntonStu

BTW I roast my own coffee. Is coffee important to you too?

You have misconstrued my words. Maybe intentionally and maybe not. Doesn't really matter.
I have seen enough evidence to lead me to believe the things I say. I didn't come up with these theories with wishful thinking and a case of Pabst. I research these things before I stick my neck out here.

Yes, I like coffee very much. That's why I chose the name. I grind my own beans but I don't roast them. Is that a stab at civility or are you going to turn it on me somehow?

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 07:01 PM

You have misconstrued my words. Maybe intentionally and maybe not. Doesn't really matter.
I have seen enough evidence to lead me to believe the things I say. I didn't come up with these theories with wishful thinking and a case of Pabst. I research these things before I stick my neck out here.

Yes, I like coffee very much. That's why I chose the name. I grind my own beans but I don't roast them. Is that a stab at civility or are you going to turn it on me somehow?

I wanted to understand how important coffee is to you, since you use it to refer to yourself. As you can see, I take coffe more seriously than most. No offense.

You said that you know that we can do better in producing hho.

How much better? What do you know/believe is the highest possible MMW?

BoyntonStu

SmartScarecrow

02-20-2009, 07:45 PM

I wanted to understand how important coffee is to you, since you use it to refer to yourself. As you can see, I take coffe more seriously than most. No offense.

You said that you know that we can do better in producing hho.

How much better? What do you know/believe is the highest possible MMW?

BoyntonStu

in theory, using stainless steel and KOH the highest REAL mmw possible is in the mid 4's ... in practice, using measurement techniques that are available to most who choose to measure with as much accuracy as is practical, 5-6 mmw is a smoking slick piece of work with the highest I have seen reliably measured under laboratory conditions to be 7.3 mmw ... some who are smarter than I am have indicated to me that it might just be possible to squeeze 7.5 mmw ...

there are two electrolytes out there that are just a weeee bit more efficient than KOH that might be used to push the envelope a bit ... I know of one fellow who is doing such research ... some of the stuff he is playing with can make you glow in the dark so its certainly not a practical electrolyte ... but it is after all about pushing the envelope ... so maybe only his hair falls out ... its all for the cause ... he tells me that the theoretical REAL limit on some of these exotic electrolytes is low 5's ... so he may be able to push observed performance into the 8's ...

Painless

02-20-2009, 07:57 PM

... some of the stuff he is playing with can make you glow in the dark so its certainly not a practical electrolyte ... but it is after all about pushing the envelope ... so maybe only his hair falls out ... its all for the cause ...

So, *THATS* what happened to Z's hairline?

SmartScarecrow

02-20-2009, 08:02 PM

So, *THATS* what happened to Z's hairline?

no, I think Z would be watching from a safe distance with me ...

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 09:07 PM

I wanted to understand how important coffee is to you, since you use it to refer to yourself. As you can see, I take coffe more seriously than most. No offense.

You said that you know that we can do better in producing hho.

How much better? What do you know/believe is the highest possible MMW?

BoyntonStu

You may have forgotten that I am a paramedic. We work 24 hour shifts and sometimes more with little to no sleep. Coffee is very important to me.

I did not say I knew better ways to make HHO. Russ, Larry and SSC are WAY beyond me in this endeavour. You probably are too, Stu.
What I said was I know we can do better with the way we use the energy available to us. Especially gasoline. A gallon of gas has immense power. We have just begun to tap it.
Until we figure a better source of energy, we must learn to be more efficient with what we've got. That's why we make HHO (most of us anyway).
Now it's time to look at other technologies that could combine with or surpass what we've built on here.
People poo-pooed HHO when I first started talking about it. Now I know as much about it as they don't know about it. The nay sayers won't talk to me about it anymore because I reveal their ignorance.
You now poo poo on vaporizing carbs. I have high hopes for it as I did and do HHO. You don't seem to have much to say about plasma plugs. How do you feel about that, by the way?

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 09:12 PM

in theory, using stainless steel and KOH the highest REAL mmw possible is in the mid 4's ... in practice, using measurement techniques that are available to most who choose to measure with as much accuracy as is practical, 5-6 mmw is a smoking slick piece of work with the highest I have seen reliably measured under laboratory conditions to be 7.3 mmw ... some who are smarter than I am have indicated to me that it might just be possible to squeeze 7.5 mmw ...

there are two electrolytes out there that are just a weeee bit more efficient than KOH that might be used to push the envelope a bit ... I know of one fellow who is doing such research ... some of the stuff he is playing with can make you glow in the dark so its certainly not a practical electrolyte ... but it is after all about pushing the envelope ... so maybe only his hair falls out ... its all for the cause ... he tells me that the theoretical REAL limit on some of these exotic electrolytes is low 5's ... so he may be able to push observed performance into the 8's ...

Would you agree that anyone claiming MMW more than 9 is full of hot steam?

BoyntonStu

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 09:22 PM

You may have forgotten that I am a paramedic. We work 24 hour shifts and sometimes more with little to no sleep. Coffee is very important to me.

I did not say I knew better ways to make HHO. Russ, Larry and SSC are WAY beyond me in this endeavour. You probably are too, Stu.
What I said was I know we can do better with the way we use the energy available to us. Especially gasoline. A gallon of gas has immense power. We have just begun to tap it.
Until we figure a better source of energy, we must learn to be more efficient with what we've got. That's why we make HHO (most of us anyway).
Now it's time to look at other technologies that could combine with or surpass what we've built on here.
People poo-pooed HHO when I first started talking about it. Now I know as much about it as they don't know about it. The nay sayers won't talk to me about it anymore because I reveal their ignorance.
You now poo poo on vaporizing carbs. I have high hopes for it as I did and do HHO. You don't seem to have much to say about plasma plugs. How do you feel about that, by the way?

There are many vehicles on the road that run on natural gas and some on propane.

No vaporization problems, and no amazing mileage gains.

Canadian inventor Charles Nelson Pogue did obtain a Patent, but he never built his carburetor.

I presume that his patent was read by many able people, who could have built and tested the design.

AFAIK No vaporizing carburetor has ever shown high mileage.

I do not have an opinion about plasma plugs.

Since I do not know anything about them, I did not discuss the subject.

AFAIK A gallon of gas has about 125,000 BTU's.

(Diesel has more)

BoyntonStu

H2OPWR

02-20-2009, 09:32 PM

Would you agree that anyone claiming MMW more than 9 is full of hot steam?

BoyntonStu

The one thing that is always missing from all the ultra high MMW tests is accurate temp measuring. I simply do not trust the infrared devices pointed at plastic end plates or bottles. Plastic is way too good of an insulator. I do beleive that most people do beleive that they are getting those great numbers but I doubt most of them. Ant there are those who choose to deceive. Especially the ones that just build a standard dry cell and claim 7+ MMW or more. There is a seller on EBAY now claiming over 8 MMW. His tests are very suspect and he is simply selling a normal dry cell. He is measuring the amps with probes at the plates? Why do they not use a good clamp meter around the power wires and show the real amperage. I will tell you why. It is because they have spent more time trying to trick people out of their money than trying to make good devices. No one can see which plates he is probing etc. These people spreading this crap really hurt the whole technology. It angers me to even think that this load of B**L SH** is even allowed.

coffeeachiever

02-20-2009, 09:57 PM

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 10:08 PM

I believe anyone claiming anything close to 9 mmw is completely full of ****e. Electrolysis as we know it cannot self sustain. HHO is a catalyst for burning gasoline. I do not expect to find overunity here. I follow EBN to see how far we can take it.
However, there is also immense power stored in water. Perhaps we will find a way to harness it soon.

You used "immense" to describe the energy in gasoline.

I posted 125,000 BTU per gallon. Is that "immense"?

You again use "immense" to describe the energy stored in a gallon of water.

How much energy is there in 87.65 oz (by weight) of Hydrogen?

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-20-2009, 10:16 PM

Question for you guys, do you believe what Stan Meyers did was real? or did he trick us?

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 10:22 PM

Question for you guys, do you believe what Stan Meyers did was real? or did he trick us?

What did Stan Meyers do?

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-20-2009, 10:35 PM

What did Stan Meyers do?

BoyntonStu

Run a car only on water: right?

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 10:36 PM

Run a car only on water: right?

Did he?

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-20-2009, 10:39 PM

Did he?

BoyntonStu

Can you prove he didn't? If it was a fake it was the best one i ever saw

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 10:49 PM

Can you prove he didn't? If it was a fake it was the best one i ever saw

Up till this question, your questions were logical.

In Science, logical discussions begin with a positive statement.

What did you 'see'?

Did you ever 'see' a woman cut in half by a magician?

If you have a positive premise to discuss, fine, I will engage.

BoyntonStu

SmartScarecrow

02-20-2009, 10:51 PM

Can you prove he didn't? If it was a fake it was the best one i ever saw

what Stan Meyer did was create a very unique engine, almost entirely ceramic or ceramic coated, that operated as an internal combustion steam engine ... yes, in a way, he did indeed run a car on water ... much the same way early trains ran on water ... his real fuel was electricity ... bur yes for all practical purposes, he ran a car on water ...

as have many others using a very similar technique ...

BoyntonStu

02-20-2009, 10:59 PM

what Stan Meyer did was create a very unique engine, almost entirely ceramic or ceramic coated, that operated as an internal combustion steam engine ... yes, in a way, he did indeed run a car on water ... much the same way early trains ran on water ... his real fuel was electricity ... bur yes for all practical purposes, he ran a car on water ...

as have many others using a very similar technique ...

W h a a t?

"an internal combustion steam engine"?

Electricity, combustion, water, I am totally confused.

What was combusted?

And: "early trains ran on water"

I disagree, early trains ran on wood and coal that were combusted to create steam pressure.

The steam is equivalent to hydraulic fluid.

Does an electric hydraulic motor run on electricity or hydraulic fluid?

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-20-2009, 11:01 PM

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 01:03 AM

Do you have a link?

as far as I know, the fellow who is closest to doing it right now and is actually talking about it and showing how on he internet is Kevin West I think he has published a number of YouTube videos showing the preliminaries but I dont think he has quite figured out how to put all the pieces together yet ... but he is so close I bet he figures it out soon ... I think his web site is www.waterforfuel.com and think he uses waterforfuel as his YouTube handle ...

the last fellow I ran into who had actually done it was a semi-literate 25 year old automobile mechanic in North Carolina about five years ago ... I don't think this fellow knows what YouTube is so I dont think there will be a video any time soon ...

his effort produced an early 70's Ford step side pick up truck, straight 6 cly with 3 on the tree that used a technique very similar to what it appears Meyer used ... a modified carborator, HHO entriched water and plasma spark ... the thing certainly did not run well and I would bet it was not putting more than 10 hp to the rear wheels ...

but it did run and moved under its own power, what little there was of it ... this fellow did not do the extensive modifications to the engine that Meyer did ... his exhaust system had rusted off after only a few months of operation and there where many other mechanical problems ... it was very hard to start the engine and once it did start, it made the most unusual hollow put-put sound ...

I never got a chance to see Meyer's buggy but I know a few who did ... they indicated that it was quite peppy but not nearly as potent as a gasoline powered vehicle of the same type ... the old Ford pick up truck I was able to examine closely ... I am convinced it was as represented ... after about 10 minutes driving it around a parking lot, I quickly determined that it was not at a practical level of development, but that the fellow had proven that it was at least possible ...

yes, it is possible to run a car on water ... not any car that you own now or that is currently being sold ... but an engine could be designed in such a way that a precise charge of water could be injected into a combustion chamber without causing cavitation ... that water could be enriched with HHO as it is being injected ... and a plasma spark of adequate energy could be applied that would quite literally explode the water into high temperature steam ... this seems to be the method that works ... but dont try it on your 2001 Buick unless you are prepared to make a lot of mods ...

I have been trying to recreate this method for about 10 years ... so far, no joy ... close but no cigar ... have destroyed so many used $50 lawn mowers trying it at this point I could probably have had that custom engine build by now ... but I keep trying ... maybe West will crack it this year and provide clear assembly instructions ... that guy with the old Ford pickup truck was quite open about how he had done it and explained it to me as best he could, but without a "insert tab a into slot a" set of instructions, it takes a lot of trial and error ...

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 01:24 AM

W h a a t?

"an internal combustion steam engine"?

Electricity, combustion, water, I am totally confused.

What was combusted?

And: "early trains ran on water"

I disagree, early trains ran on wood and coal that were combusted to create steam pressure.

The steam is equivalent to hydraulic fluid.

Does an electric hydraulic motor run on electricity or hydraulic fluid?

BoyntonStu

perhaps combustion was a bit strong ... I am not sure we have a term that is appropriate for the act of taking a cold fog of water vapor mixed with a very small amount of HHO and instantly converting it into high temperature steam ... technically, I guess you are correct, the water is not really burning, except for a very small percentage of HHO that is introduced as a means of helping the action along ... the theory is that a portion of the water is disassociated by the energy of the plasma ingnition, though I am not certain about this ... if so, I guess maybe that portion is "burned" after a fashion ... but yes, technically, I think I would have agree ... combustion was an incorrect way to describe such a phenomena ... we may need a new word ...

Gary Diamond

02-21-2009, 01:18 PM

as far as I know, the fellow who is closest to doing it right now and is actually talking about it and showing how on he internet is Kevin West I think he has published a number of YouTube videos showing the preliminaries but I dont think he has quite figured out how to put all the pieces together yet ... but he is so close I bet he figures it out soon ... I think his web site is www.waterforfuel.com and think he uses waterforfuel as his YouTube handle ...

the last fellow I ran into who had actually done it was a semi-literate 25 year old automobile mechanic in North Carolina about five years ago ... I don't think this fellow knows what YouTube is so I dont think there will be a video any time soon ...

his effort produced an early 70's Ford step side pick up truck, straight 6 cly with 3 on the tree that used a technique very similar to what it appears Meyer used ... a modified carborator, HHO entriched water and plasma spark ... the thing certainly did not run well and I would bet it was not putting more than 10 hp to the rear wheels ...

but it did run and moved under its own power, what little there was of it ... this fellow did not do the extensive modifications to the engine that Meyer did ... his exhaust system had rusted off after only a few months of operation and there where many other mechanical problems ... it was very hard to start the engine and once it did start, it made the most unusual hollow put-put sound ...

I never got a chance to see Meyer's buggy but I know a few who did ... they indicated that it was quite peppy but not nearly as potent as a gasoline powered vehicle of the same type ... the old Ford pick up truck I was able to examine closely ... I am convinced it was as represented ... after about 10 minutes driving it around a parking lot, I quickly determined that it was not at a practical level of development, but that the fellow had proven that it was at least possible ...

yes, it is possible to run a car on water ... not any car that you own now or that is currently being sold ... but an engine could be designed in such a way that a precise charge of water could be injected into a combustion chamber without causing cavitation ... that water could be enriched with HHO as it is being injected ... and a plasma spark of adequate energy could be applied that would quite literally explode the water into high temperature steam ... this seems to be the method that works ... but dont try it on your 2001 Buick unless you are prepared to make a lot of mods ...

I have been trying to recreate this method for about 10 years ... so far, no joy ... close but no cigar ... have destroyed so many used $50 lawn mowers trying it at this point I could probably have had that custom engine build by now ... but I keep trying ... maybe West will crack it this year and provide clear assembly instructions ... that guy with the old Ford pickup truck was quite open about how he had done it and explained it to me as best he could, but without a "insert tab a into slot a" set of instructions, it takes a lot of trial and error ...

Well, wow, you sure put a lot on the table here, were do i start?

You say you saw this guy in NC, can you see what he has done in detail and give us the info?

Can you explain what HHO entriched water is?

Can you tell me what a plasma spark is?

Perhaps we can all learn from you something, thanks Gary Diamond

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 01:55 PM

Well, wow, you sure put a lot on the table here, were do i start?

You say you saw this guy in NC, can you see what he has done in detail and give us the info?

Can you explain what HHO entriched water is?

Can you tell me what a plasma spark is?

Perhaps we can all learn from you something, thanks Gary Diamond

as far as the fellow in NC who was playing with the idea 5 years ago, I have no relationship with the man ... it was a chance encounter arranged by a fellow I was doing some work for there ... I have no idea if the guy continued to pursue the technology or has made any improvements since ... from his point of view, this was nothing that unusual and that his father had shown him how to do it and helped him with the build ... he indicated that his father had playing with such things since the early 70's ...

the basics to getting a good plasma spark are pretty well known ... you take your basic capacitive discharge ignition system and add a separate diode protected low voltage, high amperage secondary circuit to it ... when the high voltage spark goes off, it creates a path that the low voltage, high current potential can follow ... this results in a brief plasma discharge that has considerable kick to it ... many are experimenting with such things and quite a few of them are publishing videos on YouTube ... I have not seen a YouTube video yet that appears to be "state of the art", but ones West has shown are pretty darn close ...

current spark plugs wear out quickly when used in plasma experimentation ... however, there are high performance spark plugs out there that some are playing with that seem to hold up pretty well ... they are expensive, hard to find and still wear out very quickly but these seem to offer the most promise if the technology were to be pursued commercially ...

getting the two circuits to merge at the spark plug is pretty neat trick ... I have seen a number of methods employed to do this, but they all seem to be working on the same basic theory ... you got the HV spark oriented with the positive center electrode and chassis ground ... you got the low voltage potential with its positive to chassis and an isolated negative to the center conductor ... the low voltage discharge is usually 120vDC at about 2-5 amps ... the high voltage discharge is normally 9-30kv at milliamps ...

the spark gap is widened considerably over stock ... the low voltage cannot bridge the spark gap until the HV spark goes off and creates an ion path for it to follow ... then the quick pulse of low voltage goes off and is what creates the plasma ... the plasma consists of a tiny bit of metal from the surface of the spark plug being ripped apart and having its electrons stripped from the atoms ... it is a short lived, violent reaction, but has quite a bit of energy potential ...

the trick is to isolate the HV from the LV in a circuit like this ... takes a lot of diodes ... and in trying to replicate the technique I have melted more than one diode array and quit a few HV power supplies ... if you plan to experiment with this stuff, best to buy in bulk and get a discount ... hope you enjoy the fragrance of ozone and molten plastic ... you will become accustomed to both ...

there are many ways to enrich water with HHO ... the idea is to get a concentration of HHO into suspension in the water sort of like a carbonated beverage ... the way I have found is easiest is to pump fluid through my electrolyzer at fairly high volumes ... this strips the bubbles off the plates before they have a chance to form into large buoyant bubbles ... the tiny little nano bubbles you end up with tend to stay in solution for an extended period of time before they dissipate ...

the way it was explained to me that Meyer did it, was to pass water headed for the engine through something akin to a microwave cavity ... there are a few radio frequencies that are known to disassociate water ... it is believed that this is how he was enriching the water just before he injected it into his engine ... there need only be a small percentage of HHO in the water to help the process along ... we are expanding water into steam with this process, not burning HHO ...

anyway, I know what you would like to have ... you want the same kind of insert tab a into slot a type thing I would like to have ... well, no body has produced that yet as far as I know ... there are a lot of fellows like me out there who have seen it done, know it can be done, have a pretty good idea from a 10,000 foot perspective on how to do it, but just do not have the mechanical and/or technical ability to pull it off ...

will take someone with really strong knowledge of engines and machining to make this work ... I fear I do not have either in sufficient quantity ... if I manage to do get it to work, it will be purely by luck ... I would be happy to get to work as well as that fellow I met in NC ... his setup was far from drivable but it worked ... if I got one to do that I would be doing back flips ...

Gary Diamond

02-21-2009, 04:08 PM

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 05:28 PM

It would seem to me with all the time, labor, and money that it would be cheaper to back track, and find that guy in NC and give the guy a $1,000 to let you tap him for his know how and let you peek under the hood, TAKE PICS or better yet buy one of his early models that he must have

WHY RE-INVENT THE WHEEL, IF SOME ONE ELSE HAS DONE IT "JUST INPROVE IT"
Thanks for letting me have your ear

Gary Diamond

I have yet to see one in person that I thought I would be comfortable driving every day ... one of Anderson's early daily drivers is at the water fuel museum in Kentucky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Fuel_Museum ... it can be seen any time you want to pay the modest fee at the door ... dont think they drive it any more ... I think Anderson's water splitter was nuclear in design so am not sure that one would be practical as a daily driver ...

fact remains there are many such examples ... none work well ... most are novelties ... trick is to figure out a way that works well enough so you can hop in it and depend on it working first time, every time ... this I have not seen yet ... it has been said that even Meyer had to do a lot of fiddling with his setup to get it to run ... every time he showed it off he had to tinker with it for quite a while before it would go ... and it appears that Meyer's setup was one of the more advanced and practical designs ...

Gary Diamond

02-21-2009, 06:15 PM

I have yet to see one in person that I thought I would be comfortable driving every day ... one of Anderson's early daily drivers is at the water fuel museum in Kentucky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Fuel_Museum ... it can be seen any time you want to pay the modest fee at the door ... dont think they drive it any more ... I think Anderson's water splitter was nuclear in design so am not sure that one would be practical as a daily driver ...

fact remains there are many such examples ... none work well ... most are novelties ... trick is to figure out a way that works well enough so you can hop in it and depend on it working first time, every time ... this I have not seen yet ... it has been said that even Meyer had to do a lot of fiddling with his setup to get it to run ... every time he showed it off he had to tinker with it for quite a while before it would go ... and it appears that Meyer's setup was one of the more advanced and practical designs ...

I try to have an open mind, but I need to see it myself, to even begin to believe it works.
Some of the videos I see on u-tube are plain fakes, there's always some tiny gas tank hidden.
Most people want to believe it works, it’s like religion, I suppose, but Stu can tell you I should not bring that up I need to see and feel facts.

I don't want to get off topic but I will, just to point out if you could show a equal comparison, then I would be more convinced.

Here goes, I think growing algae next to a power plant is the answer to our energy problem. Well why do I feel that way, ok I can see them growing fast, being only water, sun light and co2 is needed and wow OIL, and we cleaned up the air, and now we have oxygen and dried algae as a by product

These are things I can see and touch soooooooo why don't we do it on a large scale? Is it big oil keeping the lid on it maybe? So if this industry doesn’t grow how could a water car grow? Even if you had it tomorrow, do you really think big would not buy you out, or kill you, sorry I need hard proof, show me a picture of Stan Meyers spark plug being fired on a bench or just the guy in NC’s spark plug.

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 06:54 PM

I try to have an open mind, but I need to see it myself, to even begin to believe it works.
Some of the videos I see on u-tube are plain fakes, there's always some tiny gas tank hidden.
Most people want to believe it works, it’s like religion, I suppose, but Stu can tell you I should not bring that up I need to see and feel facts.

I don't want to get off topic but I will, just to point out if you could show a equal comparison, then I would be more convinced.

Here goes, I think growing algae next to a power plant is the answer to our energy problem. Well why do I feel that way, ok I can see them growing fast, being only water, sun light and co2 is needed and wow OIL, and we cleaned up the air, and now we have oxygen and dried algae as a by product

These are things I can see and touch soooooooo why don't we do it on a large scale? Is it big oil keeping the lid on it maybe? So if this industry doesn’t grow how could a water car grow? Even if you had it tomorrow, do you really think big would not buy you out, or kill you, sorry I need hard proof, show me a picture of Stan Meyers spark plug being fired on a bench or just the guy in NC’s spark plug.

there is one on YouTube that I am pretty sure is not a fake ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBCl3OdM9Y4 ... I have been following this fellow for years ... his technique is simple and direct and it works ... again, not well, but it works ... about 5 years back, he was showing an old Camaro running on water ...

he is something of legend ... but every time he tries to share what he knows, he gets shot in the butt by the nay sayers and its pretty much blown his mojo ... for a long time he flat stopped showing off his stuff because he got fed up with everyone calling him a fake and worse ... and the fact is, he has never tried to sell anyone anything or squeeze a dime out of anyone ... he keeps trying to give it away for free and getting shot down in flames for doing it ... ah well ...

BoyntonStu

02-21-2009, 07:28 PM

there is one on YouTube that I am pretty sure is not a fake ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBCl3OdM9Y4 ... I have been following this fellow for years ... his technique is simple and direct and it works ... again, not well, but it works ... about 5 years back, he was showing an old Camaro running on water ...

he is something of legend ... but every time he tries to share what he knows, he gets shot in the butt by the nay sayers and its pretty much blown his mojo ... for a long time he flat stopped showing off his stuff because he got fed up with everyone calling him a fake and worse ... and the fact is, he has never tried to sell anyone anything or squeeze a dime out of anyone ... he keeps trying to give it away for free and getting shot down in flames for doing it ... ah well ...

One of the comments:

"Moonshine burns pretty good don't it?? People, don't believe a word this guy says. He's provided NO proof and has been caught in so many lies it's ridiculous. Just go to his yahoo group and see the ridiculousness for yourself. What a freakin' joke!!!"

What exactly was the transparent fluid that he drank?

Why should we assume that it was water?

BoyntonStu

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 07:40 PM

One of the comments:

"Moonshine burns pretty good don't it?? People, don't believe a word this guy says. He's provided NO proof and has been caught in so many lies it's ridiculous. Just go to his yahoo group and see the ridiculousness for yourself. What a freakin' joke!!!"

What exactly was the transparent fluid that he drank?

Why should we assume that it was water?

BoyntonStu

yes ... these are the standard arguments made ... heard them all before ...

EDIT: I have used moonshine and can tell you that will no modifications to the engine at all, I can make it run at lot better than that ... with just a tweak to the timing, a wide spark gap with a a bit more energy and larger jets in the carb, I could mow my lawn with moonshine ... been there done that ... back yard alcohol is a very practical fuel that is easy to make ... so no, I dont think he was trying to fool anyone with his demonstration ... but you are correct, I have no proof that the demonstration was true because try as I might, I have been able to replicate it ... but someone a bit smarter than me might be able to pull it off ... so I hope some will give it a try ...

BoyntonStu

02-21-2009, 07:47 PM

yes ... these are the standard arguments made ... heard them all before ...

Hearing arguments is one thing, tasting the fluid is another.

Have you sipped it?

Remember, Henry Ford was up close and personal when he was scammed into believing that his car ran on water.

Acetone was the villain then and a lot of money and time was wasted.

BoyntonStu

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 08:20 PM

Hearing arguments is one thing, tasting the fluid is another.

Have you sipped it?

Remember, Henry Ford was up close and personal when he was scammed into believing that his car ran on water.

Acetone was the villain then and a lot of money and time was wasted.

BoyntonStu

in the three cases where I have witnessed an engine run on water, the first thing I did was look for some hidden reservoir of combustible fluid and then test the liquid being fed to the engine ... in the case of the old Ford pickup, I watched the fuel tank being filled using a garden hose and took a sip just to be sure ... so there are some I can confirm to be 100% factual, others that I accept as factual based on the weight of evidence presented and still others that I consider highly probable ... and of course there are a lot of fakes as well ...

you are of course entitled to your own opinion ... but for me its no longer a matter of opinion or faith as I have seen it done ... the basics are pretty well understood by many ... now its really up to the mechanically inclined to put the pieces together and figure out how to beat the related problems ... and there are many problems that need to be overcome ...

BoyntonStu

02-21-2009, 09:26 PM

in the three cases where I have witnessed an engine run on water, the first thing I did was look for some hidden reservoir of combustible fluid and then test the liquid being fed to the engine ... in the case of the old Ford pickup, I watched the fuel tank being filled using a garden hose and took a sip just to be sure ... so there are some I can confirm to be 100% factual, others that I accept as factual based on the weight of evidence presented and still others that I consider highly probable ... and of course there are a lot of fakes as well ...

you are of course entitled to your own opinion ... but for me its no longer a matter of opinion or faith as I have seen it done ... the basics are pretty well understood by many ... now its really up to the mechanically inclined to put the pieces together and figure out how to beat the related problems ... and there are many problems that need to be overcome ...

"the basics are pretty well understood by many"

Let's work on these basics so all can understand what is claimed.

#1. It is possible to get energy from pure drinking water (no additives) without adding more energy into the system than is produced from the water.

Is this the prime condition that you accept as necessary and possible?

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-21-2009, 09:28 PM

in the three cases where I have witnessed an engine run on water, the first thing I did was look for some hidden reservoir of combustible fluid and then test the liquid being fed to the engine ... in the case of the old Ford pickup, I watched the fuel tank being filled using a garden hose and took a sip just to be sure ... so there are some I can confirm to be 100% factual, others that I accept as factual based on the weight of evidence presented and still others that I consider highly probable ... and of course there are a lot of fakes as well ...

you are of course entitled to your own opinion ... but for me its no longer a matter of opinion or faith as I have seen it done ... the basics are pretty well understood by many ... now its really up to the mechanically inclined to put the pieces together and figure out how to beat the related problems ... and there are many problems that need to be overcome ...

Its time to prove these cars run on water?

Stu, i'm asking if you, could come up with list of what it would take for you, to say its real.

Why you? Well i think your smart, and "your a naysayer, which is a good thing" perhaps some good can come from this debate

in a postive way.

Gary Diamond

BoyntonStu

02-21-2009, 09:41 PM

Its time to prove these cars run on water?

Stu, i'm asking if you, could come up with list of what it would take for you, to say its real.

Why you? Well i think your smart, and "your a naysayer, which is a good thing" perhaps some good can come from this debate

in a postive way.

Gary Diamond

Here is a WalMart test that would convince me:

Go to the place where the person who claims that s/he can run an ICE on water.

Go to WalMart and buy a new lawn mower in an unopened box and a sealed gallon of spring water.

Don't let these 2 items out of your sight.

If s/he can get it to run for 2 minutes, I would be convinced.

BoyntonStu

SmartScarecrow

02-21-2009, 09:51 PM

"the basics are pretty well understood by many"

Let's work on these basics so all can understand what is claimed.

#1. It is possible to get energy from pure drinking water (no additives) without adding more energy into the system than is produced from the water.

Is this the prime condition that you accept as necessary and possible?

BoyntonStu

no ... you must apply enough energy to convert the water to steam ... a proper air:water ratio needs to be worked out ... once compressed, an adequate amount of energy must be applied to convert the water to steam ...

this is no free lunch and is not any sort of free energy device ... it is just a less explored variation on a very old concept ... the steam engine ... I would assume that many of the same rules apply ... the idea is to eliminate the external boiler normally associated with a steam engine and instead flash the water rapidly into steam within the confines of the "combustion chamber" ...

the unusual thing about it is that under these conditions, it appears to take a lot less energy to flash the water vapor into steam than is taught in the physics books ... and it takes surprisingly little water under such conditions to be able to extract useful mechanical energy as the water is flashed into high temperature steam ... and the mechanical energy released appears to exceed that delivered by the impulse used to flash the water into steam ...

so I would assume that some water is being consumed in the process in a manner that I do not fully understand and that it is this water consumed that yields the excess of energy ... or so it appears ...

this is of course my best guess based on what I have seen ... I would love to replicate such a device even at a primitive level just to see if I can better understand exactly what is going on ... the fact is, I have no idea how it works, my education tells me it should not work, but it does ...

Gary Diamond

02-21-2009, 09:54 PM

Here is a WalMart test that would convince me:

Go to the place where the person who claims that s/he can run an ICE on water.

Go to WalMart and buy a new lawn mower in an unopened box and a sealed gallon of spring water.

Don't let these 2 items out of your sight.

If s/he can get it to run for 2 minutes, I would be convinced.

BoyntonStu

So what are you really saying Stu, that the person who is the inventor, should have a ready to install kit, that they could bolt on to the

brand new lawn mower and a bottle of water to pour into the tank, you then would say it works and you would then stop being a

naysayer and would join the ranks.

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE'S NOT A TINY FUEL BOTTLE IN THE KIT

BoyntonStu

02-21-2009, 10:19 PM

no ... you must apply enough energy to convert the water to steam ... a proper air:water ratio needs to be worked out ... once compressed, an adequate amount of energy must be applied to convert the water to steam ...

this is no free lunch and is not any sort of free energy device ... it is just a less explored variation on a very old concept ... the steam engine ... I would assume that many of the same rules apply ... the idea is to eliminate the external boiler normally associated with a steam engine and instead flash the water rapidly into steam within the confines of the "combustion chamber" ...

the unusual thing about it is that under these conditions, it appears to take a lot less energy to flash the water vapor into steam than is taught in the physics books ... and it takes surprisingly little water under such conditions to be able to extract useful mechanical energy as the water is flashed into high temperature steam ... and the mechanical energy released appears to exceed that delivered by the impulse used to flash the water into steam ...

so I would assume that some water is being consumed in the process in a manner that I do not fully understand and that it is this water consumed that yields the excess of energy ... or so it appears ...

this is of course my best guess based on what I have seen ... I would love to replicate such a device even at a primitive level just to see if I can better understand exactly what is going on ... the fact is, I have no idea how it works, my education tells me it should not work, but it does ...

Converting water to steam is not magic.

Start with a pound of water at 52 * F.

To get it up to boiling temperature which is 212* F at sea level pressure you need 212 -52 = 160 BTU. (1 BTU will raise 1 lb of water 1*F)

However, you will not get steam until you supply the latent heat of vaporization which requires an additional 970 BTU/lb.

In order to change a pound of 52* water requires 160 + 970 = 1130 BTU.

There are no shortcuts.

Every air-conditioner works on the principle of evaporation/condensation.

Every day, there are millions of these machines that prove the fact the the Laws of Thermodynamics are accurate and predictable.

"the unusual thing about it is that under these conditions, it appears to take a lot less energy to flash the water vapor into steam than is taught in the physics books "

Data, measurements, would certainly prove the point.

I have never known any physicist unwilling to be proven wrong.

AAMOF All Scientists would be grateful to learn something new.

What is Science? "Humankind's attempt to measure Nature".

Without measurement, there is no Science.

BoyntonStu

BoyntonStu

02-21-2009, 10:28 PM

So what are you really saying Stu, that the person who is the inventor, should have a ready to install kit, that they could bolt on to the

brand new lawn mower and a bottle of water to pour into the tank, you then would say it works and you would then stop being a

naysayer and would join the ranks.

BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE'S NOT A TINY FUEL BOTTLE IN THE KIT

"Don't let these 2 items out of your sight."

If I inspected the kit, I would be convinced.

However, if the inventor drapes the kit, I would assume that a magic trick is being performed.

Join the ranks?

First there needs to be a yes-sayer.

I haven't yet heard a yes-sayer making any valid claim, and therefore I have nothing to say one way or the other.

Can you point to a yes-sayer?

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-21-2009, 10:35 PM

BoyntonStu

02-21-2009, 10:51 PM

Stu are all physicist, like you, not that's a bad thing, but wondering when one of you physicist invents something, do you all ask for the data first LOL

So now the big question is can a lawn mowner run on water? Or is HHO good enough?

"one of you physicist invents something, do you all ask for the data first"

ABSOLUTELY, YES! All claims are peer reviewed around the world.

I remember well the Cold Fusion claims and the excitement.

Hundreds of experimenters attempted to duplicate the 'findings".

None succeeded, and Cold Fusion was discarded and discredited.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-21-2009, 11:29 PM

"one of you physicist invents something, do you all ask for the data first"

absolutely, yes! All claims are peer reviewed around the world.

I remember well the cold fusion claims and the excitement.

Hundreds of experimenters attempted to duplicate the 'findings".

None succeeded, and cold fusion was discarded and discredited.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

Boyntonstu

But if a engine ran only on HHO would that be running on water? a YES or a NO is ok, but go ahead and add some more

BoyntonStu

02-22-2009, 08:28 AM

But if a engine ran only on HHO would that be running on water? a YES or a NO is ok, but go ahead and add some more

An engine can certainly run on 100% hho.

(hho = 2 parts hydrogen gas and 12 part oxygen gas)

Is hho water?

Try putting out a fire with hho and you will obtain a loud instant answer.

If you survive, you might well consider using H2O to put out the fire.

Can an engine run on ice?

Is ice water?

Is steam ice?

Definition, definition, definition..

BoyntonStu

ranger2.3

02-22-2009, 10:31 AM

An engine can certainly run on 100% hho.

(hho = 2 parts hydrogen gas and 12 part oxygen gas)

Is hho water?

Try putting out a fire with hho and you will obtain a loud instant answer.

If you survive, you might well consider using H2O to put out the fire.

Can an engine run on ice?

Is ice water?

Is steam ice?

Definition, definition, definition..

BoyntonStu

Actually one type of engine can run off of steam and ice, its called a stirling engine. But you do have a good point

Gary Diamond

02-22-2009, 11:12 AM

Dr. Steven Greer Gets Stan Meyer's Dune Buggy (http://altnews.blogdig.net/archives/articles/January2009/11/Dr_Steven_Greer_Gets_Stan_Meyer_s_Dune_Buggy.html)

BoyntonStu

02-22-2009, 11:34 AM

Dr. Steven Greer Gets Stan Meyer's Dune Buggy (http://altnews.blogdig.net/archives/articles/January2009/11/Dr_Steven_Greer_Gets_Stan_Meyer_s_Dune_Buggy.html)

Words, words, and more words.

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-22-2009, 11:36 AM

<div><object width="480" height="381"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k5VHBbRYrTeYAJSrEY&related=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/k5VHBbRYrTeYAJSrEY&related=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="381" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><br /><b><a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7q4dk_dr-steven-greer-gets-stan-meyers-du">Dr. Steven Greer Gets Stan Meyer's Dune Buggy Part 1 of 6</a></b><br /><i>Uploaded by <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/buencaminos">buencaminos</a></i></div>

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7q4hx_dr-steven-greer-gets-stan-meyers-du

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7q4ne_dr-steven-greer-gets-stan-meyers-du

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7q4qv_dr-steven-greer-gets-stan-meyers-du

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7q4vo_dr-steven-greer-gets-stan-meyers-du

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7q527_dr-steven-greer-gets-stan-meyers-du

BoyntonStu

02-22-2009, 12:03 PM

From 6/6

They are seeking money to help pull this project together as they move forward.

Also, listen carefully to the video #6.

"A 200 Watt generator producing several thousand Watts".

Do you believe in fairies, then clap your hands.

Bull! Bull! and more Bull!

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-22-2009, 02:14 PM

BoyntonStu

02-22-2009, 02:54 PM

Stu, your smashing my hopes, and dreams of a car that runs only on water, and that STAN MEYERS WAS A FAKE. But there’s this voice that keeps saying Nooooooooooooo it’s got to be real, how could he have pulled it off???

The same way as most guys pull it off!

I am not jerking you around!

I believe than Stan earned an "A" and I will gladly give him one.

Stan Meyers should be renamed Satan Meyers.

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-22-2009, 05:17 PM

The same way as most guys pull it off!

I am not jerking you around!

I believe than Stan earned an "A" and I will gladly give him one.

Stan Meyers should be renamed Satan Meyers.

BoyntonStu

I hope your wrong Stu, but i must admit, i need stronger proof then i have seen so far, so for now i agree. I wonder if a poll was taken how many would agree with you, i think not to many want to hear the truth, and that goes for me too.

But why did he spend so much money on patents if it was a fake?

BoyntonStu

02-22-2009, 05:30 PM

I hope your wrong Stu, but i must admit, i need stronger proof then i have seen so far, so for now i agree. I wonder if a poll was taken how many would agree with you, i think not to many want to hear the truth, and that goes for me too.

But why did he spend so much money on patents if it was a fake?

$5,000 investment for a Patent.

$500,000 in potential profits.

Looks like a reasonable 'loaded dice' gamble.

Here's a TESTIMONIAL!

"An engineer named Daniel Dingel, who used to work for NASA, has developed a car that uses plain tap water and/or sea water for fuel. The technology utilizes a mini-reactor in the car that splits the water molecule into hydrogen & oxygen, with hydrogen being burned off as fuel.The emission released out of the exhaust is clean pure water vapor or water- absolutely no pollution, in fact, it cleans the air. He now has 6 cars running on water, the first car drove out in 1969, over 30 years ago. We have a 15 minute video of a Dingel interview, test drive and engine demonstration of one of his water-fueled cars that we wish to show you. (See end of letter on how to obtain the video). He also has various other water-powered inventions- all are patents pending."

Daniel Dingel was convicted of taking money for his 'invention'.

"
Watercar is a discussion group established for interaction on the invention of the century - the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) powered by hydrogen derived ON DEMAND from plain water. The invention is by Engr. Daniel D. Dingel, a Filipino.

The theory is simple: Liquid water is split into hydrogen and oxygen and then the two gases are recombined to form water vapor. This essentially could be the elusive car that runs on water."

MANILA, Philippines—Daniel Dingel, 82-year-old inventor of a “water-powered car,” has been convicted of “estafa” [swindling] and sentenced to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment by the Parañaque City Regional Trial Court.

The court also ordered him to pay $380,000 in actual damages.

Dingel, who has never revealed the secret to his invention, which he began in 1969, questioned the verdict but said he did not mind going to jail at his age. As of late Friday, he remained at large...

Not a bad way to earn a few hundred thousand pesos!

BoyntonStu

Gary Diamond

02-22-2009, 06:00 PM

$5,000 investment for a Patent.

$500,000 in potential profits.

Looks like a reasonable 'loaded dice' gamble.

Here's a TESTIMONIAL!

"An engineer named Daniel Dingel, who used to work for NASA, has developed a car that uses plain tap water and/or sea water for fuel. The technology utilizes a mini-reactor in the car that splits the water molecule into hydrogen & oxygen, with hydrogen being burned off as fuel.The emission released out of the exhaust is clean pure water vapor or water- absolutely no pollution, in fact, it cleans the air. He now has 6 cars running on water, the first car drove out in 1969, over 30 years ago. We have a 15 minute video of a Dingel interview, test drive and engine demonstration of one of his water-fueled cars that we wish to show you. (See end of letter on how to obtain the video). He also has various other water-powered inventions- all are patents pending."

Daniel Dingel was convicted of taking money for his 'invention'.

"
Watercar is a discussion group established for interaction on the invention of the century - the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) powered by hydrogen derived ON DEMAND from plain water. The invention is by Engr. Daniel D. Dingel, a Filipino.

The theory is simple: Liquid water is split into hydrogen and oxygen and then the two gases are recombined to form water vapor. This essentially could be the elusive car that runs on water."

MANILA, Philippines—Daniel Dingel, 82-year-old inventor of a “water-powered car,” has been convicted of “estafa” [swindling] and sentenced to a maximum of 20 years imprisonment by the Parañaque City Regional Trial Court.

The court also ordered him to pay $380,000 in actual damages.

Dingel, who has never revealed the secret to his invention, which he began in 1969, questioned the verdict but said he did not mind going to jail at his age. As of late Friday, he remained at large...

Not a bad way to earn a few hundred thousand pesos!

BoyntonStu

Oh dam, he's a fake too