I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good 
to be true, it probably is.

After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how 
one can make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not 
convinced, despite all the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.

One report claimed only 4oz of water was consumed on a 100 mile 
trip in a car.

Maybe my logic is wrong, but I just can't see a significant 
amount of energy coming from such a small quantity of water.

And, as it uses battery power to run the process, that in itself 
will put more demand on the alternator, thus increasing the load 
on the engine which is not going to help fuel economy.

What do the technical bods think?
Mike.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:KbWdnZb4u9Y_LgXVnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good to be 
>true, it probably is.
>
> After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how one can 
> make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not convinced, despite all 
> the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.
>
> One report claimed only 4oz of water was consumed on a 100 mile trip in a 
> car.
>
> Maybe my logic is wrong, but I just can't see a significant amount of 
> energy coming from such a small quantity of water.
>
> And, as it uses battery power to run the process, that in itself will put 
> more demand on the alternator, thus increasing the load on the engine 
> which is not going to help fuel economy.
>
> What do the technical bods think?

I think that if you're the same Mike G who's the engineer with the celica 
and BMW, you've just sorely disappointed me - the answer is so obvious that 
the only reason you should visit those websites is to point and laugh.

Yes, your instinct is correct. Rather than wondering how it might possibly 
work, you should be weeping that people actually get taken in by this.

Flanders and Swann covered this in one of their songs - where does the 
energy come from? Answer that and you've either become insanely rich or 
understood the problem. Also see perpetual motion machines...

"Mike G"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

> I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good to be
> true, it probably is.

Yup.

> After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how one can
> make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not convinced, despite
> all the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.

The websites selling fuel system magnets have a shedload of "evidence" 
that they work, too.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:KbWdnZb4u9Y_LgXVnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good to be 
>true, it probably is.
>
> After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how one can 
> make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not convinced, despite all 
> the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.
>
> One report claimed only 4oz of water was consumed on a 100 mile trip in a 
> car.
>
> Maybe my logic is wrong, but I just can't see a significant amount of 
> energy coming from such a small quantity of water.
>
> And, as it uses battery power to run the process, that in itself will put 
> more demand on the alternator, thus increasing the load on the engine 
> which is not going to help fuel economy.
>
> What do the technical bods think?
> Mike.

You can produce the hydrogen quite easily but the main problem is you use 
more energy getting it than you can get back from burning what you produce.
If it was possible with current technology wouldn't the power companies be 
doing the same in power stations rather than spending millions burning oil 
and coal?
Don't let it put you off experimenting, there's lots of free information out 
there without paying for it. If you work out how to get a significant amount 
of hydrogen with minimal power consumption you'll become a billionaire.

"Homer"  wrote in message 
news:g7ad5n$s90$1@localhost.localdomain...
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:KbWdnZb4u9Y_LgXVnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too 
>>good to be true, it probably is.
>>
>> After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on 
>> how one can make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still 
>> not convinced, despite all the 'apparent' evidence that it 
>> does work.
>>
>> One report claimed only 4oz of water was consumed on a 100 
>> mile trip in a car.
>>
>> Maybe my logic is wrong, but I just can't see a significant 
>> amount of energy coming from such a small quantity of water.
>>
>> And, as it uses battery power to run the process, that in 
>> itself will put more demand on the alternator, thus increasing 
>> the load on the engine which is not going to help fuel 
>> economy.
>>
>> What do the technical bods think?
>> Mike.
>
> You can produce the hydrogen quite easily but the main problem 
> is you use more energy getting it than you can get back from 
> burning what you produce.
> If it was possible with current technology wouldn't the power 
> companies be doing the same in power stations rather than 
> spending millions burning oil and coal?

That's more or less what I was thinking. I don't believe the 
claims, but freely admit that as far as the technology is 
concerned, electrolysis etc, I have no idea of the power 
requirements. In fact electronics in general have me baffled. I 
can wire things up, but don't ask me how they work. :-)

> Don't let it put you off experimenting, there's lots of free 
> information out there without paying for it. If you work out 
> how to get a significant amount of hydrogen with minimal power 
> consumption you'll become a billionaire.

Anyone got the actual figures as related to a car engine.
IOW how much current is required to give enough hydrogen to give 
the up to 50% fuel savings claimed.
Mike.

Homer  wrote:

> You can produce the hydrogen quite easily but the main problem is you use
> more energy getting it than you can get back from burning what you produce.

If anyone doubts this, consider running a power station. We're going to
generate electricity by burning a mixture of hydrogen produced by
electrolysis (Brown's Gas). So we start out power station going using a
fossil fuel and electrolyse ourselves a big batch of Brown's gas and
burn that. We use the electricity produced to make more Brown's gas and
burn that (and so on).

Anyone spot the flaw with this?

> I'm still not convinced, despite all the 'apparent' evidence 
> that it does work.

Henry Ford was scammed out of a large amount of money by someone 
claiming to be able to run a car on water...


-- 
Lordy.UK

Mike G  wrote:

> Anyone got the actual figures as related to a car engine.
> IOW how much current is required to give enough hydrogen to give 
> the up to 50% fuel savings claimed.

It's not how much current that's important, it's how many Watt-Hours. A
litre of petrol is 36MJ or 10kWH. A typical car wil use around 6 litres
per 100km. That's 60 kWH. Half of that is 30 kWH.

Making the incorrect assumption that electrolysis is 100% efficient,
that means we need 30 kWH to replace half the petrol used for a 100km
trip. If we take an hour to do the trip and we're using a 12V supply on
a car, that's going to require 2500AMPs continuously for an hour. If we
have a 240V alternator it will take 125A. That's a seriously large
alternator to have to carry around in a car. And electrolysis tends to
be around 30% efficient, so multiply those figures by three for a rule
of thumb figure.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6frr99Fc1fttU2@mid.individual.net...
> "Mike G"  gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying:
>
>> I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good to be
>> true, it probably is.
>
> Yup.
>
>> After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how one can
>> make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not convinced, despite
>> all the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.
>
> The websites selling fuel system magnets have a shedload of "evidence"
> that they work, too.

I was thinking of posting a listing for one on eBay as there explanation for 
how it works bends every aspect of science I have ever known, but it dose 
have a nice picture of all the petrol molecules lining up.

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:10:04 +0100, "Mike G" 
wrote:

>I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good 
>to be true, it probably is.
>
>After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how 
>one can make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not 
>convinced, despite all the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.
>
>One report claimed only 4oz of water was consumed on a 100 mile 
>trip in a car.
>
>Maybe my logic is wrong, but I just can't see a significant 
>amount of energy coming from such a small quantity of water.
>
>And, as it uses battery power to run the process, that in itself 
>will put more demand on the alternator, thus increasing the load 
>on the engine which is not going to help fuel economy.
>
>What do the technical bods think?
>Mike.

Yep. You could make it work, and the performance wouldn't be too much
worse than before. The mods would be fairly straightforward, if a bit
radical.

Start by fitting an engine of a fair bit higher power than the car's
current one somewhere else in the car. Add an alternator capable of
absorbing all of the power from the new engine and hook it up to a
*vast* electrolysis cell. Pipe the resulting HHO mixture to the
original engine, which will need modding of course. Bob's your uncle!

All you have to do now is keep filling up the new engine's petrol tank
with a lot more petrol than the old one used to use.

Cheers,

Colin.

"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1il80cp.m8v2zz15hnvp3N%%steve%@malloc.co.uk...
> Mike G  wrote:
>
>> Anyone got the actual figures as related to a car engine.
>> IOW how much current is required to give enough hydrogen to 
>> give
>> the up to 50% fuel savings claimed.
>
> It's not how much current that's important, it's how many 
> Watt-Hours. A
> litre of petrol is 36MJ or 10kWH. A typical car wil use around 
> 6 litres
> per 100km. That's 60 kWH. Half of that is 30 kWH.
>
> Making the incorrect assumption that electrolysis is 100% 
> efficient,
> that means we need 30 kWH to replace half the petrol used for a 
> 100km
> trip. If we take an hour to do the trip and we're using a 12V 
> supply on
> a car, that's going to require 2500AMPs continuously for an 
> hour. If we
> have a 240V alternator it will take 125A. That's a seriously 
> large
> alternator to have to carry around in a car. And electrolysis 
> tends to
> be around 30% efficient, so multiply those figures by three for 
> a rule
> of thumb figure.

Thanks for the explanation Steve. Even I can understand those 
figures.
Mike.

Mike G wrote:

> What do the technical bods think?

If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for a reason ;)

-- 
Abo

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
> Mike G wrote:
>
>> What do the technical bods think?
>
> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for a reason 
> ;)
>
> -- 
> Abo


Of course you could fill your garden and cover your house roof in solar 
cells and use that to make hydrogen in your garage via water electrolisis. 
Discard the oxygen. You really dont want to compress both hydrogen and 
oxygen in the same cylinder! Or do the same with windmills and old car 
alternators free from the scrap yard... Or even plug it into the mains power 
since theres no road fund tax and its massively cheaper than petrol.

Then use a pump like an old fridge compressor to fill ex pub co2 bottles 
with hydrogen at around 800 psi since thats the best an old fridge motor can 
do..

Fit a regulator set to 3 bar.

Fit a solenoid and jet (small) that allows a small amount of hydrogen into 
your intake system.  The closed loop/oxy sensor will then reduce petrol 
added to your engine automatically to get the mixture right.

Use a microswitch on the throttle that adds the hydrogen at say 1/8th 
throttle va the solenoid. And another to disable it at WOT.

Because both idle (on some cars) and WOT (most cars) is not mixture 
controlled by the oxygen sensor.

Now it would be a right pain in the bum to do but now it really WOULD save 
"GAS" as they call it..

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
> Mike G wrote:
>
>> What do the technical bods think?
>
> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for 
> a reason ;)

Of course a DIY method of running a car on household organic 
waste, on the face of it also sounds a bit far fetched, but there 
are a few people who are doing exactly that.
Mike.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:hrOdnTTeM5q2DwTVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
> news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Mike G wrote:
>>
>>> What do the technical bods think?
>>
>> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for a reason 
>> ;)
>
> Of course a DIY method of running a car on household organic waste, on the 
> face of it also sounds a bit far fetched, but there are a few people who 
> are doing exactly that.

I'm not so sure that sounds a bit far fetched at all. At least there's some 
chemical energy in there with the potential to be used, unlike in water.

Thermodynamics is a zero-sum game - see Flanders and Swann. When you burn 
the gases resulting from the electrolysis of water, what do you get? Water. 
So you've got the same stuff at the beginning and at the end. So where does 
the magic extra energy come from? (ans = it doesn't).

cheers,
clive

"Clive George"  wrote in message 
news:0OmdnX6GLoIvCgTVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:hrOdnTTeM5q2DwTVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
>> news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Mike G wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do the technical bods think?
>>>
>>> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for a reason 
>>> ;)
>>
>> Of course a DIY method of running a car on household organic waste, on 
>> the face of it also sounds a bit far fetched, but there are a few people 
>> who are doing exactly that.
>
> I'm not so sure that sounds a bit far fetched at all. At least there's 
> some chemical energy in there with the potential to be used, unlike in 
> water.
>
> Thermodynamics is a zero-sum game - see Flanders and Swann. When you burn 
> the gases resulting from the electrolysis of water, what do you get? 
> Water. So you've got the same stuff at the beginning and at the end. So 
> where does the magic extra energy come from? (ans = it doesn't).
>
> cheers,
> clive
>


Not only is there no extra energy it COSTS MORE per mile afterwards because 
even if the water splitting was 100 percent efficient (its not) then there 
is a few other problems!

The power comes from the engine (WAY less than 100 percent efficient) to 
drive the alternator (less than 100 percent efficient conversion) and even 
the wiring gets warm due to internal resistance so that too wastes energy.

Obviously only a fool could actually fall for this crap, since if it worked 
you wouldnt need a fuel tank at all and all energy would be free!

"Clive George"  wrote in message 
news:0OmdnX6GLoIvCgTVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:hrOdnTTeM5q2DwTVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
>> news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Mike G wrote:
>>>
>>>> What do the technical bods think?
>>>
>>> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't 
>>> for a reason ;)
>>
>> Of course a DIY method of running a car on household organic 
>> waste, on the face of it also sounds a bit far fetched, but 
>> there are a few people who are doing exactly that.
>
> I'm not so sure that sounds a bit far fetched at all. At least 
> there's some chemical energy in there with the potential to be 
> used, unlike in water.

I've also wondered about the economics of running a car on 
household gas.
Not that I'm thinking of having a go, but during WW2 a few 
vehicles were running around with enormous gasbags on their 
roofs. Presumably filled with mains gas. A no-no at higher speeds 
because of the drag, but at city and urban speeds, drag is not 
very significant. Except in high winds. :-)

I can't see it ever being permitted, if only because of the risk 
of fire in an accident, but I still wonder if it would actually 
be cheaper than diesel or petrol. Presumably if it were allowed, 
the fuel tax would be similar to that of LPG. OTOH I suspect a 
simple low pressure gasbag would not hold enough gas to make it 
worth while.
Just an idle thought. I'm not thinking of making any 
modifications to my cars fueling system.
Mike.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:ofSdnaab5ptGAwTVnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...

> I've also wondered about the economics of running a car on household gas.
>...
> I can't see it ever being permitted, if only because of the risk of fire 
> in an accident, but I still wonder if it would actually be cheaper than 
> diesel or petrol.

Probably would be, yes. Some vehicles do/did it - "CNG" is the thing you're 
looking for - compressed natural gas.

cheers,
clive

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:ofSdnaab5ptGAwTVnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "Clive George"  wrote in message 
> news:0OmdnX6GLoIvCgTVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
>> news:hrOdnTTeM5q2DwTVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>
>>> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
>>> news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Mike G wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What do the technical bods think?
>>>>
>>>> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for a 
>>>> reason ;)
>>>
>>> Of course a DIY method of running a car on household organic waste, on 
>>> the face of it also sounds a bit far fetched, but there are a few people 
>>> who are doing exactly that.
>>
>> I'm not so sure that sounds a bit far fetched at all. At least there's 
>> some chemical energy in there with the potential to be used, unlike in 
>> water.
>
> I've also wondered about the economics of running a car on household gas.
> Not that I'm thinking of having a go, but during WW2 a few vehicles were 
> running around with enormous gasbags on their roofs. Presumably filled 
> with mains gas. A no-no at higher speeds because of the drag, but at city 
> and urban speeds, drag is not very significant. Except in high winds. :-)


Ah but they didnt have old fridge motors to compress it to 800 psi and bung 
it into a pub C02 bottle though did they...


>
> I can't see it ever being permitted, if only because of the risk of fire 
> in an accident, but I still wonder if it would actually be cheaper than 
> diesel or petrol.

Massively due to no rip off tax.


Presumably if it were allowed,
> the fuel tax would be similar to that of LPG. OTOH I suspect a simple low 
> pressure gasbag would not hold enough gas to make it worth while.
> Just an idle thought. I'm not thinking of making any modifications to my 
> cars fueling system.
> Mike.
>

In article <B8CdnXi8J6eQPATVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@posted.plusnet>, 
clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk says...
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:ofSdnaab5ptGAwTVnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
> 
> > I've also wondered about the economics of running a car on household gas.
> >...
> > I can't see it ever being permitted, if only because of the risk of fire 
> > in an accident, but I still wonder if it would actually be cheaper than 
> > diesel or petrol.
> 
> Probably would be, yes. Some vehicles do/did it - "CNG" is the thing you're 
> looking for - compressed natural gas.
> 
> cheers,
> clive 
> 
> 
> 
A lot of buses and trucks that do mainly local driving, normally council 
and health service type vehicles (so there is a fairly large central 
area for fuel storage) get converted to CNG.
-- 
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553

"Burgerman"  wrote in message 
news:jdimk.77006$dz3.10129@newsfe20.ams2...
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:ofSdnaab5ptGAwTVnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>
>> "Clive George"  wrote in message 
>> news:0OmdnX6GLoIvCgTVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
>>> news:hrOdnTTeM5q2DwTVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>>
>>>> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
>>>> news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>> Mike G wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What do the technical bods think?
>>>>>
>>>>> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't 
>>>>> for a reason ;)
>>>>
>>>> Of course a DIY method of running a car on household organic 
>>>> waste, on the face of it also sounds a bit far fetched, but 
>>>> there are a few people who are doing exactly that.
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure that sounds a bit far fetched at all. At 
>>> least there's some chemical energy in there with the 
>>> potential to be used, unlike in water.
>>
>> I've also wondered about the economics of running a car on 
>> household gas.
>> Not that I'm thinking of having a go, but during WW2 a few 
>> vehicles were running around with enormous gasbags on their 
>> roofs. Presumably filled with mains gas. A no-no at higher 
>> speeds because of the drag, but at city and urban speeds, drag 
>> is not very significant. Except in high winds. :-)
>
>
> Ah but they didnt have old fridge motors to compress it to 800 
> psi and bung it into a pub C02 bottle though did they...

Is that feasible?
Must be something agin it. otherwise we'd have heard about it.
Mike.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:53:04 +0100, "Mike G" 
wrote:

>> Ah but they didnt have old fridge motors to compress it to 800 
>> psi and bung it into a pub C02 bottle though did they...
>
>Is that feasible?
>Must be something agin it. otherwise we'd have heard about it.
>Mike.

I don't know about fridge compressors - 800psi doesn't sound like it
would get you very far on a sensible sized tank.

Home gas compressors running at about 3000psi were in vogue a few
years ago :-

http://www.gasfill.com/products.htm

Not sure how well things are going with it all now though...

Cheers,

Colin.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:Qu2dnamVCryUeATVnZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>
> "Burgerman"  wrote in message 
> news:jdimk.77006$dz3.10129@newsfe20.ams2...
>> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
>> news:ofSdnaab5ptGAwTVnZ2dnUVZ8hidnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>
>>> "Clive George"  wrote in message 
>>> news:0OmdnX6GLoIvCgTVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:hrOdnTTeM5q2DwTVnZ2dnUVZ8sDinZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>> Mike G wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do the technical bods think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for a 
>>>>>> reason ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course a DIY method of running a car on household organic waste, on 
>>>>> the face of it also sounds a bit far fetched, but there are a few 
>>>>> people who are doing exactly that.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure that sounds a bit far fetched at all. At least there's 
>>>> some chemical energy in there with the potential to be used, unlike in 
>>>> water.
>>>
>>> I've also wondered about the economics of running a car on household 
>>> gas.
>>> Not that I'm thinking of having a go, but during WW2 a few vehicles were 
>>> running around with enormous gasbags on their roofs. Presumably filled 
>>> with mains gas. A no-no at higher speeds because of the drag, but at 
>>> city and urban speeds, drag is not very significant. Except in high 
>>> winds. :-)
>>
>>
>> Ah but they didnt have old fridge motors to compress it to 800 psi and 
>> bung it into a pub C02 bottle though did they...
>
> Is that feasible?
> Must be something agin it. otherwise we'd have heard about it.
> Mike.
>

Its feasable as a supplement added to reduce the petrol usage. Its not 
feasable if you want to use it as a only fuel source unless a trip to the 
local shop is as far as you want to go!

"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message 
news:kspj94h6cq6rnbuhmtcjmdtinapibhggh6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 18:53:04 +0100, "Mike G" 
> wrote:
>
>>> Ah but they didnt have old fridge motors to compress it to 800
>>> psi and bung it into a pub C02 bottle though did they...
>>
>>Is that feasible?
>>Must be something agin it. otherwise we'd have heard about it.
>>Mike.
>
> I don't know about fridge compressors - 800psi doesn't sound like it
> would get you very far on a sensible sized tank.
>
> Home gas compressors running at about 3000psi were in vogue a few
> years ago :-


But I dont have one! I do have an old fridge motor...

I recon that you might, at 3000 psi, (have to use heavier bottles though...) 
get enough range for a short trip as the only fuel!


>
> http://www.gasfill.com/products.htm
>
> Not sure how well things are going with it all now though...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin.

"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message.

> Home gas compressors running at about 3000psi were in vogue a
> few
> years ago :-
>
> http://www.gasfill.com/products.htm
>
> Not sure how well things are going with it all now though...

Sounds quite promising providing you do enough mileage.
At £1500 to convert the car, and £2500 for the gas compressor,
it's not exactly cheap.
Mike.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:36:02 +0100, "Mike G" 
wrote:

>
>"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message.
>
>> Home gas compressors running at about 3000psi were in vogue a
>> few
>> years ago :-
>>
>> http://www.gasfill.com/products.htm
>>
>> Not sure how well things are going with it all now though...
>
>Sounds quite promising providing you do enough mileage.
>At £1500 to convert the car, and £2500 for the gas compressor,
>it's not exactly cheap.

It looks like business isn't good. The website looks like it hasn't
been updated in a while...

Cheers,

Colin.

"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message 
news:2b6k94lic4idghoflgkp3sdd4tdepcb181@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:36:02 +0100, "Mike G" 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message.
>>
>>> Home gas compressors running at about 3000psi were in vogue a
>>> few
>>> years ago :-
>>>
>>> http://www.gasfill.com/products.htm
>>>
>>> Not sure how well things are going with it all now though...
>>
>>Sounds quite promising providing you do enough mileage.
>>At £1500 to convert the car, and £2500 for the gas compressor,
>>it's not exactly cheap.
>
> It looks like business isn't good. The website looks like it hasn't
> been updated in a while...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Colin.

Heavens! Nowhere on that website is there any mention of the fuel duty you'd 
presumably have to work out and pay.
Isn't it more cost effective to use barbecue bottles and just, like, twist 
the valve on and off by hand?

"Mark W" <s@o> wrote in message 
news:489b62f4_4@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Colin Stamp"  wrote in message 
> news:2b6k94lic4idghoflgkp3sdd4tdepcb181@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:36:02 +0100, "Mike G" 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Colin Stamp"  wrote in message.
>>>
>>>> Home gas compressors running at about 3000psi were in vogue a
>>>> few
>>>> years ago :-
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gasfill.com/products.htm
>>>>
>>>> Not sure how well things are going with it all now though...
>>>
>>>Sounds quite promising providing you do enough mileage.
>>>At £1500 to convert the car, and £2500 for the gas compressor,
>>>it's not exactly cheap.
>>
>> It looks like business isn't good. The website looks like it hasn't
>> been updated in a while...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Colin.
>
> Heavens! Nowhere on that website is there any mention of the fuel duty 
> you'd presumably have to work out and pay.
> Isn't it more cost effective to use barbecue bottles and just, like, twist 
> the valve on and off by hand?
>


No. Thats the expensive way.

"Mike G"  wrote in message 
news:KbWdnZb4u9Y_LgXVnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good to be 
>true, it probably is.
>
> After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how one can 
> make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not convinced, despite all 
> the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.
>


I've been watering down petrol for years. It works best with a Fish 
carburettor though.

"Mark W" <s@o> wrote in message 
news:489c9264$1_1@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
> "Mike G"  wrote in message 
> news:KbWdnZb4u9Y_LgXVnZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@posted.plusnet...
>>I belong to the school that believes if something sounds too good to be 
>>true, it probably is.
>>
>> After visiting a few websites of Co's selling information on how one can 
>> make and fit the HHO system yourself, I'm still not convinced, despite all 
>> the 'apparent' evidence that it does work.
>>
>
>
> I've been watering down petrol for years. It works best with a Fish 
> carburettor though.

I didn't think you could still get them, according to there web site:
"Please allow 3 to 6 months for delivery."

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 22:23:21 +0100, Lordy.UK  wrote:

>> I'm still not convinced, despite all the 'apparent' evidence 
>> that it does work.
>
>Henry Ford was scammed out of a large amount of money by someone 
>claiming to be able to run a car on water...

Seems there really is one born every day.

USA Department of Defence have been scammed big time by hybrid split
cycle air engine.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/5585/
I've read the a patents and know it will never work.

India is supporting research into a SIX STOKE engine (HA HA HA HEE HO)
http://www.velozeta.com/
(BUMP) Damn everytime I see "six stroke" I fall off my chair laughing.

TATA is being taken to the cleaners by a claimed air engine. Seems
they think can make a 3000psi engine/compressor that's cheap enough to
fit to a car. Recharge in 2-3mim from storage tank or 3-4min from on
board electric pump.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/iw/2007/02/11/stories/2007021102851700.htm
Odd that as scuba compressors are expensive.
http://www.leisurepro.com/Cat/Context_974/Compressors/979.html
And even 20Kw (not small) can't make the CFM of air TATA will need.
http://www.abac.co.uk/diving-compressors.htm?referrer=gaad&airc_div&kw=scuba%20compressor&fl=279683&ci=1420400163&network=s&gclid=CMrE07PyhpUCFROA1QodmlxLqg

http://www.ducati.com/bikes/techcafe.jhtml?detail=article&value=theory&part=general&artID=11
Holding piston at TDC for whole combustion phase will give major
problems removing the heat from head and piston. They will have to use
expensive jet engine alloys or high loss higher pressure cooling
systems.
-- 
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 10:29:26 +0100, "Burgerman"
 wrote:

>"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
>news:g7bm87$voe$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Mike G wrote:
>>
>>> What do the technical bods think?
>>
>> If it worked, all cars would be built that way. They aren't for a reason 
>> ;)
>>
>> -- 
>> Abo
>
>
>Of course you could fill your garden and cover your house roof in solar 
>cells and use that to make hydrogen in your garage via water electrolisis. 
>Discard the oxygen. You really dont want to compress both hydrogen and 
>oxygen in the same cylinder! Or do the same with windmills and old car 
>alternators free from the scrap yard... Or even plug it into the mains power 
>since theres no road fund tax and its massively cheaper than petrol.
>
>Then use a pump like an old fridge compressor to fill ex pub co2 bottles 
>with hydrogen at around 800 psi since thats the best an old fridge motor can 
>do..
>
>Fit a regulator set to 3 bar.
>
>Fit a solenoid and jet (small) that allows a small amount of hydrogen into 
>your intake system.  The closed loop/oxy sensor will then reduce petrol 
>added to your engine automatically to get the mixture right.
>
>Use a microswitch on the throttle that adds the hydrogen at say 1/8th 
>throttle va the solenoid. And another to disable it at WOT.
>
>Because both idle (on some cars) and WOT (most cars) is not mixture 
>controlled by the oxygen sensor.
>
>Now it would be a right pain in the bum to do but now it really WOULD save 
>"GAS" as they call it..

OK your solar/wind power is free but the installed cost depends on
size and number of generators. Use an inefficient process and your
installed cost goes up to levels that make it a non starter.

Conversion of electricity to H2 and conversion of H2 to power in an IC
engine is very inefficient. Electrolysis effy 60% x IC effy 30% = 18%.
If your electrolysis is worse then it will reduce the overall
efficiency even more, if it's as bad as Steve Firth suggests at 30%
then you are down to 9% (your installation needs to be twice the
size).

It's better to store the power in batteries and then use the batteries
to turn an electric motor. But that incurs loss on loss on loss...,
loss in charging batteries and then discharging to charge vehicle
batteries. It's better to sell the power to the grid in day time and
buy back at night rates to charge batteries.
-- 
Peter Hill
Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header
Can of worms - what every fisherman wants.
Can of worms - what every PC owner gets!