 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / April 2008Run Your Vehicles On Water (HHO)
Save 25-60% on the cost of gas including diesel. Hydrogen run autos are saving everyone a lot of money plus it adds power. In the year 2015 every new car made is required to have this system installed. Why wait another 7 years when you can own it today? Almost anyone can install them or you can take it to any mechanic and have them installed. We ship any where in the world. The cost is only $198.00 plus shipping. Our gigantic unit produces hydrogen on demand, comes with a 30 Day 100% Money Back Guarantee!! We have openings for distributors world wide. You can earn $120,000 yearly part time. Visit our site at http://wiwater4gas.com You can call me if you wish at 414-455-1329 Our goal is to have every vehicle run by water.... Can you afford water? You can either pay us and save $$$ or keep paying THEM and lose $$$ -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html >Save 25-60% on the cost of gas including diesel. Hydrogen run autos are >saving everyone a lot of money plus it adds power. They aren't and no they don't. >In the year 2015 every new car made is required to have this system >installed. Why wait another 7 years when you can own it today? Another lie. <rest of spam snipped> >>Save 25-60% on the cost of gas including diesel. Hydrogen run autos are >>saving everyone a lot of money plus it adds power. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <rest of spam snipped> AZ, dont you know it is politically incorrect to call a liar a liar? You do not know what you are talking about!! Send me proof it doesn't work. I can send you tons of experiments along with testimonials from satisfied customers. Just because you are uneducated and have no clue what this is about doesn't make me a liar... Post or email just ONE person you personally know who used this system and it didn't work for them.. Just 1. Email me their name and phone number.... Other wise stay off my post! If it didn't work why would we sell it with a 100% Money Back Guarantee? Why would they use hydrogen in the shuttle? Why would Bush pass a bill that requires all auto manufactures to have and use hydrogen in the year 2015... Wake up and smell the roses. Stop smoking that crack... -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html >You do not know what you are talking about!! Send me proof it doesn't work. >I can send you tons of experiments along with testimonials from satisfied >customers. Because hydrogen isn't a power source, it's a distribution medium. You create hydrogen with electricity, then you burn the hydrogen and get back the same power you put in. This is a good thing, and it's useful, but it's not a power source because you still need the input electricity. Nobody has yet managed to violate the First Law. >Why would they use hydrogen in the shuttle? Mostly because of density. Hydrogen is a whole lot more compact per unit power than the diesel-like fuel that the Saturn V used. Unfortunately it also leaks like hell through any little gap and it has been a real nightmare for the Shuttle guys. >Why would Bush pass a bill that requires all auto manufactures to have and >use hydrogen in the year 2015... For the same reason Bush has passed plenty of other bills... because someone paid him to do it. There are some good things to be said for hydrogen as a fuel, but President Bush's seal of approval is not one of them. --scott  Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > You do not know what you are talking about!! Send me proof it doesn't > work. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just because you are uneducated and have no clue what this is about > doesn't make me a liar... Look Shithead.. You are either a liar, or you are terminally stupid. I am an educated person. You are a buffoon, not a boffin. Go screw more ignorant people. You have a discerning audience here, and you cannot stand up to it. Send me proof!! Post just 1 web site that backs up your claim... Just one! If it is a scam, and it does not work, there will be hundred's of postings. Yes, it takes energy to produce the Hydrogen. But less than 5 amps, the same amount or less that it takes to raise or lower electric windows. Much less than you use by using your heater or A/C (by power I am talking the electric portion, not the belt to turn it). By your analogy if you disconnect your radio you will increase your MPG. Thats ridiculous. Take me up by my challenge, post web pages backing your claim. You must work or own stock in an oil company or your a bored 9th grader. Your way over your head here. The world to you is flat. No one will ever talk on a wire... No one will ever fly... It is easier to be negative than positive. The world is full of people like you. My father said color TV would never last and that is why he would never buy one. He is watching color TV LOL... Either do the challenge or stop posting... -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > Send me proof!! Post just 1 web site that backs up your claim... Just one! > If it is a scam, and it does not work, there will be hundred's of > postings. > > Yes, it takes energy to produce the Hydrogen. But less than 5 amps, the > same amount or less that it takes to raise or lower electric windows. Oh horseshit.. Are you a chemist or a physicist, or an engineer?? This is one of the first things we learn, and the chemistry, or physics, is unassailable. There are definite relationships between the about of electrical current (coulombs, amps, whatever) to produce hydrogen electrolytically and the amout of benefit you can receive in return. There is no free lunch. Hydrogen is a WONDERFUL fuel. Your shitteaux scam is just an attempt to make some money off the uneducated or gullible. I can forward your (and your stupid alter-ego's) internet information to the Feds, if you like. > Send me proof!! Post just 1 web site that backs up your claim... Just one! > If it is a scam, and it does not work, there will be hundred's of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Either do the challenge or stop posting... I will post any time I wish, you ignorant sh.t. I am a college graduate, a research chemist. Others on this board are also very well educated in similar scientific fields. Hydrogen is great, as far as it goes. Your pitiful hucksterism is laughable.. You are a disgrace. Go sell some magnetic fuel line devices, or other crap. But dont try to do it here. This is not an Ebay for idiots. At least, it wasnt until you posted . > Send me proof!! Post just 1 web site that backs up your claim... Just one! > If it is a scam, and it does not work, there will be hundred's of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You must work or own stock in an oil company or your a bored 9th grader. > Your way over your head here. Looking over your stuff, I'll say you're a fraud. This from a bored Ph.D. chemist ;) There is a propane gas business/store/shop very near me.They will be happy to convert your vehicle's engine to run on good old tried and true propane. cuhulin From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water --- Efficiency Water electrolysis does not convert 100% of the electrical energy into the chemical energy of hydrogen. The process loses energy because ions in the water need to move to carry electricity, and this movement ultimately heats up the water. The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. Some report 50-70%, while the theoretical maximum efficiency of the electrolysis of water is between 80-94%.[2] These values refer only to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into hydrogen's chemical energy. The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. For instance, when considering a power plant that converts the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the total efficiency may be closer to 25-45%. --- > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water > --- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the > total efficiency may be closer to 25-45%. Energy losses are to be expected, as electrolysis is not an ideal system. The OP is not sophisticated enough to understand even the idealized concept, apparently. >> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water >> --- [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the >> total efficiency may be closer to 25-45%. >Energy losses are to be expected, as electrolysis is not an ideal system. >The OP is not sophisticated enough to understand even the idealized concept, >apparently. What is sad is that he didn't learn this by the time somebody gave him internet access. I remember at age 10 showing my dad a diagram of two generators hooked up to a single motor. One generator powered the motor. The other generator supplied free energy. The hydrogen system is no different. It is based on a profound lack of understanding of energy distribution. >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water >--- >Efficiency >Water electrolysis does not convert 100% of the electrical energy into >the chemical energy of hydrogen. The process loses energy because ions >in the water need to move to carry electricity, and this movement >ultimately heats up the water. >The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. Some report >50-70%, while the theoretical maximum efficiency of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the heat of nuclear reactions into hydrogen via electrolysis, the >total efficiency may be closer to 25-45%. More like 10%, at best. 10-25% loss at the alternator converting mechanical energy to electrical 50% energy loss for electrolysis 50% energy loss for burning the hydrogen You get greater results sticking your a.s out the window and trying to propell the car with a good long fart. >>From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water >> --- [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You get greater results sticking your a.s out the window and trying to > propell the car with a good long fart. Looked at the REAL power use by this spammers set-up. 22-25 amp continuous draw! SignatureSteve W. 76th and Villard streets in Milwaukee,,,, What, no guard dogs running around in those chain link fences? cuhulin > 76th and Villard streets in Milwaukee,,,, What, no guard dogs running > around in those chain link fences? > cuhulin Maybe there isn't, maybe there is... >You do not know what you are talking about!! Send me proof it doesn't work. >I can send you tons of experiments along with testimonials from satisfied >customers. >Just because you are uneducated and have no clue what this is about >doesn't make me a liar... Oh puleeze. I knew more about the subject mattter than you when I was ten. This is really basic stuff and your stupdity and ignorance are astounding! >Post or email just ONE person you personally know who used this system and >it didn't work for them.. Just 1. Email me their name and phone number.... I'm sorry. I don't surround myself with gullible morons. I don't know anybody stupid enough to waste their money on your trash. Why don't you post some independant unbiased results. Hint: unbiased means they weren't paid by you to produce results you want. The tests have to be double blind to be worth anything. >Other wise stay off my post! If it didn't work why would we sell it with a >100% Money Back Guarantee? Don't like being treated like a lowlife lying scumbag spammer? Then quit acting like one! >Why would they use hydrogen in the shuttle? Irrelevent. The reasons hydrogen is used have nothing to do with automobiles. First hint: the shuttle doesn't use an internal combustion engine geared to tires rolling over pavement. >Why would Bush pass a bill that requires all auto manufactures to have and >use hydrogen in the year 2015... I can think of two things right off: either you lying again, or you're demonstrating that bush is a blithering idiot. Take your pick. >Wake up and smell the roses. Stop smoking that crack... You're projecting again. > You do not know what you are talking about!! Send me proof it doesn't work. > I can send you tons of experiments along with testimonials from satisfied [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Message posted usinghttp://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ > More information athttp://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html The shuttle is a ROCKET, not a spark-ignition piston reciprocating engine. The idea in a rocket is to MAXIMIZE the exhaust gas velocity (which hydrogen does), while in a spark ignition piston engine the objective is to reduce as much as possible the energy left in the exhaust. Now, that is exactly the opposite of what you want in a rocket. A gasoline car engine can be converted quite easily to burn hydrogen, by using a similar setup used for LNG carburetion, with LOTS of egr. However, the price of hydrogen these days makes it uneconomical. In article <97f7aa51-102e-45ea-850f-748bddb353f8@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > You do not know what you are talking about!! Send me proof it doesn't work. > > I can send you tons of experiments along with testimonials from satisfied [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > by using a similar setup used for LNG carburetion, with LOTS of egr. > However, the price of hydrogen these days makes it uneconomical. This same water4gas numb nuts is advertising on Craig's list in my area, they're claiming to be opening up soon in a town not to far from me. What are the odds I'll see the huckster at any local swap meets, flea markets, etc?? It's gonna be fun laughing in his face. As a mechanic I eagerly look forward to undoing things that they screw up underhood on peoples cars. > This same water4gas numb nuts is advertising on Craig's list in my > area, they're claiming to be opening up soon in a town not to far from > me. You're in Wisconsin, aren't you? According to a whois lookup, this wiwater4gas place is registered by "Ken Weare" and/or "Doug Weare", who give this address: 7713 W Grantosa Dr Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53218 The phone number given in the whois info is the same one posted in the original message. SignatureTegger >> This same water4gas numb nuts is advertising on Craig's list in my >> area, they're claiming to be opening up soon in a town not to far [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The phone number given in the whois info is the same one posted in the > original message. That's a popular phone number, it turns out. I just Googled it, and it comes up for lots of scam-type stuff. Also found this Wiki page on the subject of water4gas's "HHO": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen_flame SignatureTegger How about that guy in Pennsylvania and some people say he can cause salt water to burn by using a certain radio frequency.If that works, it could mean the return of steam engines for cars. cuhulin > How about that guy in Pennsylvania and some people say he can cause salt > water to burn by using a certain radio frequency.If that works, it could > mean the return of steam engines for cars. > cuhulin Here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt_ Water_Using_Radio_Waves M >How about that guy in Pennsylvania and some people say he can cause salt >water to burn by using a certain radio frequency.If that works, it could >mean the return of steam engines for cars. >cuhulin I can make damn near anything oxidize if I put enough energy into it. Including water, and oxygen itself. The thing is, what you want is a reaction that has a net energy _output_ and that's a little harder. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >The thing is, what you want is a reaction that has a net energy _output_ >and that's a little harder. Most ethanol production, hydrogen, etc really are batteries. It's not practical to have a nuclear reactor in a car, but it could be practical to have a nuclear reactor power hydrogen production and hydrogen to run the car. But since environmentalists oppose nukes, wind, and probably will oppose solar if it ever become viable enough to pave a state with solar cells the hydrogen would be produced using oil, coal, and natural gas making the whole thing a pointless excerise. Exactly why the government subsidizes for ethanol don't make any sense. We get higher food and fuel prices as a result. A few years ago, Popular Mechanics magazine ran an article about a new type of atomic powered airplane that is suppose to be safe.Scuderi Group www.scuderigroup.com is working on something they call a Split Cycle engine. cuhulin Whichever search engines you like, Atomic Airplane - Popular Mechanics Powered by halfnium 178. cuhulin On Mar 25, 8:50 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > Most ethanol production, hydrogen, etc really are batteries. It's not > practical to have a nuclear reactor in a car, but it could be practical to > have a nuclear reactor power hydrogen production and hydrogen to run the > car. While some production DOES loose energy overall, there ARE ways of creating ethanol that do give a net gain in energy. If we are going to subsidize alternate fuels, the laws should be specific that only those processes that DO create net energy get the subsidies. >On Mar 25, 8:50 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >While some production DOES loose energy overall, there ARE ways of >creating ethanol that do give a net gain in energy. That's why I wrote *most*. Sugar cane being the energy gainer because the rest of the plant provides the energy for the process. > If we are going >to subsidize alternate fuels, the laws should be specific that only >those processes that DO create net energy get the subsidies. I don't have a problem with the battery version, it could work in a free market. However I think all the subsidies should go away. That includes all the oil subsidies including the military and foreign policy benefits. With a real free market alternatives would have their best chance at success IMO. >How about that guy in Pennsylvania and some people say he can cause salt >water to burn by using a certain radio frequency.If that works, it could >mean the return of steam engines for cars. Using essentially a microwave oven to create the steam would solve some of the annoying problems with steam engines in cars. cuhulin@webtv.net wrote in article <414-47E99950-1595@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>... > How about that guy in Pennsylvania and some people say he can cause salt > water to burn by using a certain radio frequency.If that works, it could > mean the return of steam engines for cars. > cuhulin My wife cooks with a "radio frequency" known as a "microwave." Yes, it WILL boil water!!!! >cuhulin@webtv.net wrote in article ><414-47E99950-1595@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Yes, it WILL boil water!!!! System efficiency ain't so great, though. Our office microwave has a 1KW nameplate rating.... but actual input power measured with a Weston moving vane meter is a nudge over 1800 watts. It takes two minutes ten seconds to boil 125 ml of water with 16'C ambient temperature. Figure that takes 2 kilocalories (plus the heat to warm up my Data General coffee mug). 14.3 cal/sec. assuming no heat loss and ignoring the mug. That's only 60 watts actually going into the water... it's 4.2 kcal/sec to the watt. Where's the OTHER 1200 watts going to? --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." I dont want to seem like I am bragging, (Fort Bragg is Bragging every day) but I own two microwave ovens.One of them is an old Sharp microwave oven that dates back to around 1982, the turn table thingy in it quit working years ago.The other one is a Sharp microwave oven I bought at a Wal Mart store about four years ago.It has the microwave and two infrared heating elements in it.Both ovens will boil water. I want a MIDI Aircar. cuhulin >>cuhulin@webtv.net wrote in article >><414-47E99950-1595@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > That's only 60 watts actually going into the water... it's 4.2 kcal/sec to > the watt. I think you're off by a factor of ten: ((125 *( (100 - 16) + 80) ) * 4.184) / 130 = 659.8 1 calorie = 4.18400 joules latent heat of water = 80 cal/g >>> cuhulin@webtv.net wrote in article >>> <414-47E99950-1595@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net>... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > 1 calorie = 4.18400 joules > latent heat of water = 80 cal/g Whoops! Mixed up latent heat of fusion (80 cal/g) with latent heat of vaporization (540 cal/g). But the water isn't all boiled away in the two minutes and 10s, just heated from 16C to 100C. $ echo "125 * (100 - 16) * 4.184 / 130" | bc -l 337.93846153846153846153 So it looks like 338W are being absorbed by the water, the rest is going into heating the cup and the inefficiency of the oven. On Mar 25, 7:31 pm, cuhu...@webtv.net wrote: > How about that guy in Pennsylvania and some people say he can cause salt > water to burn by using a certain radio frequency.If that works, it could > mean the return of steam engines for cars. > cuhulin But radio transmitters take energy. ANY form of hydrolysis takes at least as much energy input as the energy content of the hydrogen you get. "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote in message >> >> According to a whois lookup, this wiwater4gas place is registered by >> "Ken Weare" and/or "Doug Weare", who give this address: >> 7713 W Grantosa Dr >> Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53218 Appears that Ken Weare is in Colorado, and has another website, equally dubious www.bestdeals247.com > > This same water4gas numb nuts is advertising on Craig's list in my > > area, they're claiming to be opening up soon in a town not to far from [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The phone number given in the whois info is the same one posted in the > original message. Haw-haw-haw, good job Tegger. 76th and Villard, know the area well. Most business are surrounded by high chain link fences with barb or razor wire on top. Tell 'em Mr water4gas, tell em that DJs Transmissions is 2-3 blocks away, tell 'em how high the fence is. Ghetto part of town, hardly where you'd find someone making the $100K+ per year your web site claims. Google Earth street view... that is one fine house you got there Doug, when is it scheduled to be burned down? Let's check C-cap and see what ol' Doug has been up to... Oops, make that Doug and Elizabeth. My-my Doug, you have a lot of judgements against you. dead beat a few health care providers, unemployment wants their cash back, department of revenue HOLY sh.t $27,000 in back taxes? Are you fuckin kidding me? Stiffed Jacobus on your fuel oil bill, Doug, that's petty anti. And seriously, it looks like you got a little bit more to worry about than a few cuss words on usenet. Yeah, you are one SHARP business man! Aw hell, why not just post the URL? http://wcca.wicourts.gov/pager.do;jsessionid=E2461D3322CF9FB0C1FC0EE78F45 36E4.render5?cacheId=F75C3BE5F399DEF4878A674B91C3ACC7&offset=0&sortColumn =0&sortDirection=DESC Where did you go to high school Doug, Custer or Marshall? Keep posting pal, we need a broken down can't get his sh.t together 57 year old to laugh at! Oh yeah, walk on over to Rob Wegmanns and tell him I said hi! Hey, maybe while you're there, you can trot on over to AllPro Transmission and say hi to Gary Ringle for me too. > Keep posting pal, we need a broken down can't get his sh.t together 57 > year old to laugh at! <Tegger looks in all directions> water4gas seems to have vamoosed... He registered the wiwater4gas.com domain name last Thursday (yes, less than a week ago). I wonder if he'll be posting to other groups under a different nym? SignatureTegger > As a mechanic I eagerly look forward to undoing things that they screw > up underhood on peoples cars. No, you have it all wrong! This doesn't require engine modifications! Didn't you read their website? LOL. You put a glass jar with a lid and electrodes under your hood, and a hose that goes nowhere in particular (maybe somewhere in the vicinity of the air intake). Since you're stupid (proof: you paid for this), you convince yourself that your MPG has improved from all the hydrogen coming down this hose. Or, padon me, not hydrogen, HHO. Result: happy customer. By the way, this is interesting and relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen_flame Check this part out: ``The HHO trademark is associated with an unproven state of matter called magnegases,[18] and an unproven theory about magnecules, which supposedly shows that HHO is a "new gaseous and combustible form of water"'' Haha. > If it didn't work why would we sell it with a > 100% Money Back Guarantee? - Because anyone who gives you so much as a copper penny will most likely never see it again, no matter what? - Because even if you're honest in returning money, you're banking on the fact that anyone stupid enough to order a unit will probably be stupid enough to believe that it's doing something (and will convince himself of that in order to feel emotionally comfortable about his purchase?) - Because even if 95 out of 100 units shipped come back, you're still making money? It's just some silly jar with electrodes, wires and a hose that cost $5 to put together. The revenue from a unit is like 20X the cost. - Because money back guarantees are nothing special, and consumer protection laws even require them? You can get money back for almost anything, if it's returned within a certain statutory period. > > Save 25-60% on the cost of gas including diesel. Hydrogen run autos are > > saving everyone a lot of money plus it adds power. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Another lie. I agree with you, but in another forum a retired Ford engineer told me to be more open minded about crazy ideas, so I'm willing to take a chance on this product, provided someone is willing cover the costs. >> > Save 25-60% on the cost of gas including diesel. Hydrogen run autos >> > are saving everyone a lot of money plus it adds power. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to be more open minded about crazy ideas, so I'm willing to take a > chance on this product, provided someone is willing cover the costs. I agree, supply me with a unit and I can guarantee a doubble blind test on at least 10 different units. No money from your pocket for the tests. (I don`t think I will hold my breath) KB SignatureTHUNDERSNAKE #9 Protect your rights or "Lose" them The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others I and many of my friends have this same system installed on our cars and trucks and guess what? I am saving 43% and all my friends are saving up to 71%. They should raise the age here to 18 years of age. I see so often people who give some one a hard time with no proof of what they say. I also discount any posting where foul language is used. The person posting like that are uneducated fools. They should be banned permanently from this forum. Why it is allowed I have no clue. I recommend everyone to buy and use this system. I tell everyone I know about it and those people who have it love it and tell their friends. I have never purchased anything from water4gas but wish I had. I paid a lot more for my system but I am happy with it. Don't let these morons get you down water4gas. Go for it and help not only people save money on the high cost of gas, but it also helps clean the environment. There are better forum to post to than here. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html You are both full of sh.t. |I and many of my friends have this same system installed on our cars and | trucks and guess what? I am saving 43% and all my friends are saving up to | 71%. Like talking to yourself, water4gas? I own a two cylinder air cooled 12 horsepower Briggs & Stratton electric start engine.I ought to go to a junk yard and buy some angle iron and three motor scooter wheels, or boat trailer wheels and hubs, and build myself a little three wheel car, sort of like a Freeway Flyer.I could buy a Comet torque converter to use for the transmission.I would have to make sure it has enough room for the bags of groceries for when I go to the food store.It would probally get at least 75 miles per gallon. cuhulin >I own a two cylinder air cooled 12 horsepower Briggs & Stratton electric > start engine.I ought to go to a junk yard and buy some angle iron and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the food store.It would probally get at least 75 miles per gallon. > cuhulin Why shoot low.. If you used this turd's hydrogen system, you could probably get a million miles per gallon and still sell power to the electrical grid. I've seen the device and read all about it. Truth is, I can produce MORE flammable hydrogen gas under the hood than this device by simply overcharging the battery. Airplanes don't fly, you don't talk on a wireless phone, the earth is flat, your all brain dead LMAO! You have not shown anything of proof of what you say. You never graduated from High School. You are uneducated and stupid. You are a waste of human life. I hope we meet if you live in my area.... I know you are no mechanic.... I will put up $10,000 if you can give real proof that we are wrong!! Not just a bunch of BS but independent proof!! Show me a web page where studies have been performed. A school, an independent study another words. Post it here!! Prove that all the information on the net is wrong. Do that and everyone who reads your posts will believe you. If not they are going to believe the thousands of people who know.... Just do it.. Don't talk crap. Put up or shut up. $10,000 cash!! You can buy a lot of gas with that. So anyone who is following this, you will see these people show you NOTHING! Now watch these UNEDUCATED MORONS USE FOUL LANGUAGE AS A COVER UP LOL!! -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > Airplanes don't fly, you don't talk on a wireless phone, the earth is > flat, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Now watch these UNEDUCATED MORONS USE FOUL LANGUAGE AS A COVER UP LOL!! I guess I can use the word "crap**" as being nonfoul...After all, you did it. Popular Mechanics ran a series of tests on so-called miracle fuel savers a few years ago. None of them worked -at all. Included was a hydrogen / water injector. Lost about 20% of the fuel economy, IIRC. This is not Ebay. These forums are not intended for spammers and scammers, like yourself, to use to sell your magical products. If you look at the electrochemistry of hydrogen production from water, you will see that the 5 ampere current will produce a certain molar equivalence of hydrogen gas. The energy required to do this DOES reduce your gasoline mileage slightly. When you burn the hydrogen to recover your electrochemical investment, you get the same amount of energy back (with expected losses). Hmmmmm...Perpetual motion seems to still be out of vogue. You are just juggling energy back and forth, and the sum total is (yep, you guessed it) zero. Dont you really think that if this were proven technology ALL of us would get a Mason jar and cobble up one of these simple cells? Dont you think it would have made headline news? Testimonials mean nothing. ("I did not have sex with that woman -Ms Lewinsky", and others) Get Popular Mechanics to test your device, and if they find it really does increase mileage and or power significantly, I will publicly apologize to you on this group. If not, get outta Dodge. Give me the date. I can't find it and I called Popular and they said they do not recall what you are talking about. They said that there were so called systems that did not produce any hydrogen and they were scams, but they doubted the units we are using was not one of them.... I want absolute proof! Where is it? -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > Give me the date. I can't find it and I called Popular and they said they > do not recall what you are talking about. They said that there were so > called systems that did not produce any hydrogen and they were scams, but > they doubted the units we are using was not one of them.... > > I want absolute proof! Where is it? Second law of thermodynamics. You cannot liberate more energy from burning hydrogen than it costs you to produce it via electrolysis. In fact, you can't even break even. Unless there's some magic that you're not revealing to us, your scheme will be *less* efficient than simply doing nothing. Unless you can disprove the 2nd law or can show that you are producing hydrogen by some means other than electrolysis and that the 2nd law does not come into play with your method, you are wasting your time trying to sell it to us. nate >> I want absolute proof! Where is it? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >you're not revealing to us, your scheme will be *less* efficient than >simply doing nothing. Now, what CAN occasionally work is a system that improves combustion efficiency using water or hydrogen. There are some cases where water injection works, and it works because during combustion the water turns to steam and the phase change results in the final cylinder temperature being lower and the cylinder pressure being higher. That is to say, more of the heat generated is turned into actual force. This isn't of much use with most modern engines, though. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > Give me the date. I can't find it and I called Popular and they said they > do not recall what you are talking about. They said that there were so > called systems that did not produce any hydrogen and they were scams, but > they doubted the units we are using was not one of them.... > > I want absolute proof! Where is it? Sept. 2005 http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/1802932.html I want ABSOLUTE proof in the form of repeatable LAB testing proving that your device works. NOT "My buddy Bob got a 50% increase" or the smae crap I see on ALL the sites that have the typical "This man got a 20% increase" If this thing works so great ANY lab should be able to install it on a test engine and get increased mileage, which should be able to be duplicated. BUT nobody has this proof in any form. Why is that? PS Thank you and your friends. Had 3 sales today from my post here. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > PS Thank you and your friends. Had 3 sales today from my post here. Good for you. PS Thank you and your friends. Had 3 sales today from my post here. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > I will put up $10,000 if you can give real proof that we are wrong!! Not > just a bunch of BS but independent proof!! Show me a web page where > studies have been performed. A school, an independent study another words. > Post it here!! Disprove the 2nd law or send me my $10K, scammer. nate Where are you getting your facts about what is being done? There must be some web page!!!! Where is it? You can not even follow a simple challenge. Your shooting from the hip!! Let me simplify it for you. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT FROM YOU I WANT AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE. CAN'T YOU READ. AND DO NOT TELL ME A HUNDRED YEARS AGO SOMEONE SAID BLAH BLAH BLAH SHOW ME THE WEB SITE!! I guess BMW is lying about their hydrogen/gas car also. And I suppose you do not believe Hybrid cars are really improving gas mileage either. And I bet you do not believe man was ever on the moon!! And there never was a carb invented that improved mile over 100 MPG. And the Germans did not fuel their tanks during WW2 with hydrogen did they? The world is full of doubting thomasis. The F14s in theory do not fly either but they do. Show me PROOF EGG HEAD!! -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > Where are you getting your facts about what is being done? There must be > some web page!!!! Where is it? You can not even follow a simple challenge. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Show me PROOF EGG HEAD!! KISS OFF. Why don't YOU show REPEATABLE LAB STUDIES? And "hey this dude got a 20% increase" IS NOT PROOF. How about you send it to a REAL lab and have them test it. Then post the results. OR SHUT UP. > Where are you getting your facts about what is being done? There must be > some web page!!!! Where is it? You can not even follow a simple challenge. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > INDEPENDENT SOURCE. CAN'T YOU READ. AND DO NOT TELL ME A HUNDRED YEARS AGO > SOMEONE SAID BLAH BLAH BLAH SHOW ME THE WEB SITE!! Gee, I think my degree in mechanical engineering trumps your web site. It's up to you to prove your extraordinary claims. It's up to us to laugh at you and call you a dipshit scammer. <snip> > And there never was a carb invented that improved mile over 100 MPG. no, there never was. > And the Germans did not fuel their tanks during WW2 with hydrogen did > they? I don't think so. But if they did, they had to produce the hydrogen somehow; you can't just drill it out of the ground. nate >> Where are you getting your facts about what is being done? There must be >> some web page!!!! Where is it? You can not even follow a simple challenge. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >no, there never was. Sure there wasn't one of those super milage contests where a carb tweak pushed 99.999mpg to 100.1 mpg ;) It seems all the kooks along with the mainstream media confuse those vehicles with everyday cars all the time ;) >> And the Germans did not fuel their tanks during WW2 with hydrogen did >> they? >I don't think so. But if they did, they had to produce the hydrogen >somehow; you can't just drill it out of the ground. That's how He was gathered once upon a time. Maybe he got confused ;) >>> And there never was a carb invented that improved mile over 100 MPG. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >with the mainstream media confuse those vehicles with everyday cars all >the time ;) My Moto-Guzzi had a carb that got over 100 MPG. Of course, it had trouble getting up hills.... --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." On Mar 25, 12:13 pm, "water4gas" <ad...@wiwater4gas.com> wrote: > I will put up $10,000 if you can give real proof that we are wrong!! Not > just a bunch of BS but independent proof!! Show me a web page where > studies have been performed. A school, an independent study another words. > Post it here!! Disprove the 2nd law or send me my $10K, scammer. Nate, He doesnt know what the second law is. ROTFLMAO >On Mar 25, 12:13 pm, "water4gas" <ad...@wiwater4gas.com> wrote: >> I will put up $10,000 if you can give real proof that we are wrong!! Not >> just a bunch of BS but independent proof!! Show me a web page where >> studies have been performed. A school, an independent study another words. >> Post it here!! >Disprove the 2nd law or send me my $10K, scammer. >Nate, >He doesnt know what the second law is. ROTFLMAO He spent all his money on exclamation points. TO: rec.autos.tech your [you're] all brain dead You never graduated from High School. You are uneducated and stupid. You are a waste of human life. you are no mechanic.... You are UNEDUCATED MORONS Now that you have heard my sales pitch, read these testimonials that I made up: This gadget is great!!!! 87.3 miles/gallon!!!! G. H. No more high priced gasoline!!!! Hydrogen forever!!! J. N. All my friends are buying it!!! 102 mpg!!! A. W. Get yours now before the oil companies buy it up!!! R. R. If that doesn't convince you, I am giving you a 100 per cent money back guarantee!!!! How can you lose???? Send me your money now before I withdraw my offer. Even though I spam your newsgroup with unwanted advertising, provide no description of what I am selling, have no independent scientific proof of my claims, and you don't know me at all, go ahead and trust me with your money. _____________________________________________ I am totally sold!!!! I believe every word you said!!!! Rodan. > Airplanes don't fly, you don't talk on a wireless phone, the earth is flat, > your all brain dead LMAO! You spamming twit. Get a few things straight. 1. Hydrogen isn't water. Water is burned hydrogen. 2. It takes considerable energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. If that hydrogen is used to power something, you cannot say that the process is ``powered by water''; it's powered by the energy which obtained hydrogen from water. The water may be cheap, free even, but that energy isn't. 3. If, in a vehicle, you have an energy source which can separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, it's more efficient to just apply that energy source directly into moving the car. For instance, if you have the electricity to do this, you'd be better off using that electricity to power an electric motor. 4. Thus, although hydrogen certainly makes sense as a fuel for an internal combustion engine (nobody is disputing that), making hydrogen within the vehicle on-the-fly doesn't make any sense whatsoever. > You have not shown anything of proof of what you say. Whereas you have removed all shadows of a doubt that you're a lying, spamming idiot. > You never graduated from High School. > You are uneducated and stupid. You are a waste of human > life. You're hardly even an /example/ of human life. > I will put up $10,000 if you can give real proof that we are wrong!! Bahahah! If you ever got your hands on ten grand, it would go up your nose within a week, and the change would be blown on gambling and hookers. Are you willing to deposit ten grand into escrow with a reputable law firm, whose lieutenants will consider such a proof and either award the prize or return it to you? After you have done that, then wave around your $10K offer. Give the contact info for this independent, reputable law firm that is holding your $10K, and you will have your proof. How about this simple verification. Can you post the URL of an unretouched digital photo of a person (understood to be yourself, or an agent representing you) such that: the person in the image is holding ten grand in his left hand, say a fan of 100 x $100 bills, and in his right hand, a piece of paper with ``admin@wiwater4gas.com'' clearly written on it. I cannot imagine what stands in your way of being able to do this, if you are honest. This would constitute modest evidence that you actually have ten grand in cash. You must have it if you're offering it. > Just do it.. Don't talk crap. Put up or shut up. $10,000 cash! Don't you think it would be much more right to give this to your mom and dad? You already owe them more than that in unpaid basement suite rent. I do not have to prove anything more than I already have. I made an offer and posted what needs to be done to get it. So do it. Just like any offer, you must follow the direction of the person who is making the offer. So simple to follow and you CAN'T DO IT! Are you also saying BMW is lying? Answer that one?? You make an apple to oranges comparison and then expect me to disprove your theory which has nothing to do with what we are doing... Either follow my challenge or go away. God you must have a boring life. Bet you get sexual satisfaction here. Many have emailed for my web site, here it is: http://wiwater4gas.com For more proof go to: http://httv.biz/TSBYL/ Watch the videos. I thank everyone who have supported me in this. Once you get the Hydrogen Unit installed and you see the savings for yourself, refer your friends to me. Don't bother sending them here. Bye, this is my last post here. I have accomplished what I came here to do and that is to help people fight the gas companies by helping you save money.... Bye morons. Now you can find others to pull your BS on :) -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > Bye, this is my last post here. We should be so lucky. SignatureOne meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches): Three feet Three inches Three eights of an inch You have called wiwater4gas a liar about the Presidents Bill. Here is what I found out: (It is not the entire bill but what pertains to what water4gas was talking about) Wednesday, December 19, 2007 President Bush Signs Energy Bill into Law President Signs Energy Policy Act “The bill I sign today also includes strong support for hydrogen fuel technology. When hydrogen is used in a fuel cell, it can power consumer products from computers to cell phones to cars that emit pure water instead of exhaust fumes. I laid out a hydrogen fuel initiative, and I want to thank the members of Congress for adding to the momentum of this initiative through this energy bill.†President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative aims to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology needed for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells. "A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car.†The quotations are exactly what Bush Said. Before you call someone a liar you better get ready for a fight. You could very easily be sued for your slander... Doesn't happen? Sure the hell does and people are winning big rewards. But if you don't have a pot to piss in, which is more than likely in your case, whats the use. You can also get tax credits just for having this unit installed on your car!! So whos the liar LIAR? Water4gas is telling the truth... You can believe the person who has FACTS or someone (or a few) who talk garbage. He asked for web pages, did you provide any? NO because there isn't any that back you up.... He offers a 100% Money Back Guarantee. Prove him wrong by getting one and test it. You have nothing to lose. But it is easier to bad mouth people when you do not know what you are talking about. Back up your claims like he asks or go away. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ More information at http://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html > You have called wiwater4gas a liar about the Presidents Bill. > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Message posted usinghttp://www.talkaboutautos.com/group/rec.autos.tech/ > More information athttp://www.talkaboutautos.com/faq.html Bush is an idiot too. Hydrogen isn't a fuel, it's an energy storage medium. nate > You have called wiwater4gas a liar about the Presidents Bill. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > on foreign oil by developing the technology needed for commercially viable > hydrogen-powered fuel cells. FUEL CELL > "A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, > which can be used to power a car.†IN A FUEL CELL > The quotations are exactly what Bush Said. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can also get tax credits just for having this unit installed on your > car!! NOPE. Only if you have a FUEL CELL. > So whos the liar LIAR? Water4gas is telling the truth... You can believe > the person who has FACTS or someone (or a few) who talk garbage. He asked [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > when you do not know what you are talking about. Back up your claims like > he asks or go away. He is still a LIAR. The piece of junk he promotes is NOT a fuel cell. It is a simple electrolytic cracking device that takes over 20 amps to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. Fuel cells COMBINE oxygen and hydrogen in a chemical reaction to generate electrical power. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York During World War Two, there were some oil fields and other plants/refineries in Romania that converted coal into liquid fuel for the Nazis.U.S.Army Air Force Pilots bombed those plants. On the web, U.S.Army Air Force bombed Romanian fuel refineries cuhulin cuhulin@webtv.net wrote in article <10316-47EA9719-32@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>... > During World War Two, there were some oil fields and other > plants/refineries in Romania that converted coal into liquid fuel for > the Nazis.U.S.Army Air Force Pilots bombed those plants. > On the web, U.S.Army Air Force bombed > Romanian fuel refineries > cuhulin People were getting WWII news on the Web?????? With Photoshop, or similar, he could put up an image of himself holding ten grand in one hand and whatever paper in the other hand. During World War Two, people were getting news via newspapers and radios.I dont think the web existed wayyyyy back then. cuhulin On Mar 27, 11:08 am, cuhu...@webtv.net wrote: > With Photoshop, or similar, he could put up an image of himself holding > ten grand in one hand and whatever paper in the other hand. > > During World War Two, people were getting news via newspapers and > radios.I dont think the web existed wayyyyy back then. > cuhulin Woooosh! > With Photoshop, or similar, he could put up an image of himself holding > ten grand in one hand and whatever paper in the other hand. > > During World War Two, people were getting news via newspapers and > radios.I dont think the web existed wayyyyy back then. > cuhulin Not only did the web not exist, no computers worthy of the name existed either. > <cuhu...@webtv.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not only did the web not exist, no computers worthy of the name existed > either. Computers existed. They were human beings, mostly women. They sat in groups and ran desk calculators. Sort of like a typing pool. On big jobs a supervisor would break the job down into smaller sets of calculations and had the seperate jobs around. Lens design, ballistics, wind tunnel data reduction, and lots of other computationally intensive jobs called for these groups. Oh, forgot code breaking. A lot of computers were employed by governments decoding axis messages. >> <cuhu...@webtv.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > code breaking. A lot of computers were employed by governments > decoding axis messages. Computers existed, more or less. But nothing of any real power, so far as I know. The transistor had not even yet been invented, and "peanut" tubes were some of the hottest new technology. Mechanical "computers", like Enigma, of course were there, and good mechanical adding machines. The first "electronic digital computers" I remember being touted were in the mid 40's or early 50's which used racks of relays and vacuum tubes, toroids, etc. Eniac was the name if I remember correctly. It was a cumbersome, failure prone, machine, but paved the way to the future. Analog computers were relatively simpler, I believe, and had some unique applications. Never used one in my branch of technology, although some were available on a rental, batch, or timeshare basis. > >> <cuhu...@webtv.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I believe that an early form of Bosch fuel injection (D-jet? maybe? whatever was used on the early 914/4, anyway) used an analog engine "computer." Just to take this thread on another diverging tangent... nate "N8N" <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4af22084-1bfc-4ebc-9c7c- I believe that an early form of Bosch fuel injection (D-jet? maybe? whatever was used on the early 914/4, anyway) used an analog engine "computer." Just to take this thread on another diverging tangent... nate None of them were water powered, at least ;>) Fluidics computers started coming into use a good bit later, and I have always wondered if they might not be a better answer to some automotive systems than electronic units, mainly due to possible lower failures. > Analog computers were relatively simpler, I believe, and had some unique > applications. > Never used one in my branch of technology, although some were available on a > rental, > batch, or timeshare basis. Ah! I did get to play with analog computers at one time- late sixties. After a couple of years they were replaced as digital models got faster and larger. Our analog was a pretty big cabinet full of stuff, as big as some of the smaller digitals around then. But it was one of the more powerful units. This was at McDonnell Douglas. We were simulating advanced radar systems. Slow- took forever to simulate a few seconds of real time operation. I forget what the time scaling was, but as I say we only ran a few pulses at a time. I really liked using those things, though. Nobody talks about them anymore. They sure had a short lifetime! Look on the web for, Geniac Computers I think they date back to the 1950s. cuhulin >> Analog computers were relatively simpler, I believe, and had some unique >> applications. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >really liked using those things, though. Nobody talks about them >anymore. They sure had a short lifetime! Analogue computing systems lasted well into the early eighties in various disguises, mostly for control systems rather than for doing batch calculations. EAI was making hybrid digitally-controlled-analogue computers much longer than you'd ever expect. But if you want to see a work of art, open up the fuel injection control unit in a 1972 Volvo. It really is a special-purpose analogue computer, with gain blocks, differential and integration stages, and pulse forming networks all made with op-amps and discrete components. There must be a hundred potentiometer adjustments inside there too. Some guy in Sweden probably knows what they all do; everyone else is afraid to touch them. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >Mechanical "computers", like Enigma, of course were there, Enigma was hardly a "computer" and it was electrical, rather than mechanical. Colossus, part of the attempts to break those codes, was the first truly electronic programable digital computer. If you want sophisticated digital computers built out of mechanical logic, look at Victorian railway signalling interlock. >The first "electronic digital computers" I remember being touted were in the >mid 40's or early 50's which used racks of relays and vacuum tubes, toroids, >etc. Eniac was the name if I remember correctly. Early, electronic, but non-programmable (in the sense we use the term now). It was more like a fast calculator than a decision-maker.. >>Mechanical "computers", like Enigma, of course were there, > > Enigma was hardly a "computer" and it was electrical, rather than > mechanical. Colossus, part of the attempts to break those codes, was the > first truly electronic programable digital computer. I have only seen pictures of Enigma.. Thought they were mechanical. It was, if I understand correctly, just a coding/decoding apparatus, but I considered it a simple single purpose computer. >>>Mechanical "computers", like Enigma, of course were there, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It was, if I understand correctly, just a coding/decoding apparatus, but >I considered it a simple single purpose computer. It has mechanical and electrical components. And it is just a simple transform. The Unix "crypt" command is basically modelled after the Enigma encryption and the manual page for it is well worth reading for a good idea of how it works inside. --scott Oh yes, and don't use "crypt" for anything you care about because it turns out not be too hard to break... Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>Mechanical "computers", like Enigma, of course were there, > >Enigma was hardly a "computer" and it was electrical, rather than >mechanical. Colossus, part of the attempts to break those codes, was the >first truly electronic programable digital computer. Enigma was strictly a combinational device. Colossus was an iterative device, but not really programmable. The bombes that the US Navy built using the Colossus model are worth looking at; the NSA museum in Maryland has one of them and it uses gas-filled thyratrons for actual logic devices. They're very slow by Eniac standards, but they're faster than the mechanical stuff that fed them. Today when we say "computer" we mean a finite automaton (ie. a Turing machine with a fixed length tape). It loads an instruction from memory, decodes the instruction, and does something to memory given the contents of the instruction, which includes the ability to change the program counter (that indicates where the next instruction is) conditionally. I think the first "computer" by that definition was the Harvard Mark I relay computer in the late 1930 |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message