 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / August 2008How To Build A HHO Generator
I'm sure you must of heard about running your car on water by now. http://carwithwater.googlepages.com/build_a_hho_generator Don't you just love it? "The process works by taking the electricity from your car's battery, and separating it into a gas known as HHO." I wonder what HHO is? Maybe H2O?... DAS To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- > I'm sure you must of heard about running your car on water by now. > http://carwithwater.googlepages.com/build_a_hho_generator > Don't you just love it? > > "The process works by taking the electricity from your car's battery, and When you fool around your battery's power you screw your car computer indirectly, unstable power will cause your computer program to lose track of its processing stage. Your computer will go nuts, it could land into a section that controls your ABS or something else worst could happen to your car's safety. Have you ever over-clocked your computer CPU speed before? Your computer usually locks up, you want your car computer to reset or lock up while you are at 75mph? PS. Some MPG went backward due to using Water4Gas, and the guy who sells the generator couldn't explain the true reason behind this affect. > > Don't you just love it? > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > sells the generator couldn't explain the true reason behind this > affect. Further more, wait until some heavy shock occurred on your car, that should bump your electrodes to touch each others to cause a short-circuit on your battery. That will land you in cemetery sooner than you think. >> Don't you just love it? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > computer CPU speed before? Your computer usually locks up, you want > your car computer to reset or lock up while you are at 75mph? ROFLMAO. The amount of power required to power a cars on board computer is minuscule. The computer will still function properly when the battery doesn't even have enough juice to turn the starter. I don't know what your game is, but you sure as hell aren't going to fool anyone with an IQ in the 3 digit range>:-) And yes, I've over/under clocked hundreds of CPU's.:-)  SignatureWant the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php > >> Don't you just love it? > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And yes, I've over/under clocked hundreds of CPU's.:-) Mr. Hi IQ, you think every H2O generator consumes the same amount of power? Hold on, let's not showing off the bubbles alone, why don't you put your current meter monitor your H2O generator, after 30 minutes, as it heats up, your 14 amp will turn into 28amp, then 56amp, etc.. soon enough 1-2 hp will draw off your Alternator down, and not only that, your hot water at 170 degree F will fill air intake, go figure the rest. Why don't you show off by driving a long range for 800-900 miles if you dare with your H2O generator? I'm so anxious to see. On Aug 12, 11:47 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers aren't MURDERERS" <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "The process works by taking the electricity from your car's > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > sells the generator couldn't explain the true reason behind this > affect. Subject: Re: Stanley Meyer's Court Case From: "Ted Zettergren" <ted.zettergren@swipnet.se> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:59:28 +0100 John Feiereisen skrev i meddelandet <756atu$mkn $1@client2.news.psi.net>... >For those of you who are unfamiliar, Stanley Meyer patented some >equipment for fueling an IC engine with hydrogen. In addition to this [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Thanks. VERY GOOD Mr. Feiereisen Take a copy of the tape fromx that trial and put it on the Real Player so we all can listen to what really happened in the Court. The most interesting is to hear what the WFC Expert Witnesses and Electrical Engineer Mathias Johanson has to say. The first part of the trial started on Thursday/Friday, 1/2 February 1996 before Judge William Corzine III at the Common Pleas Court, Chillicothe, Ohio. By the way. If you like to do some experiment, try this. AT FIRST: You must know the difference between a chemical reaction and a nuclear reaction. A lot of people don't understand that but they like to argue a lot in every NG on Internet. In a chemical reaction you need a lot of current and some salt for making the water conductive. In a nuclear reaction you don't need any current at all, only high voltage. How much current you need in a real application depends on how clean your water is. As cleaner as better. Stanley Meyers method's have NOTHING to do with chemical reactions. HOW TO? As a guide, you need US Patent 4,936,961 ref. figure 1 to 3F. If you read something about magical frequencyis, forget that. It works fine with 10KHz or something else if you preferred. Use 50% duty cycle. BUT! the frequency will be doubled in the step up circuit and that's the frequency the Water-Cell will work with. The components must resist at least 2000V. The Water-Cell is very simple. Take a lot of stainless steel tubes with the inner diameter of the bigger tube 3mm bigger than the outer diameter of the inner tube. From now you must look at this Water-Cell as a capacitor with water as dilectricum. The Water-Cell and the INDUCTOR will resonate at a specific frequency. It's a normal RC-circuit. Now the most important: The Water-Cell/Inductor frequency and the doubled frequency from the generator must be exactly the same. A special condition exists in a L/C Circuit, when it is energized at a frequency at which the inductive reactance is equal to the capacitive reactance, XL = XC. Adjust the voltage peak level to reach a maximum hydrogen/oxygen producing with a minimum of current using. If you earlier make hydrogen with the electrolysis method with a lot of current, this experiment will really surprise you. For even less current you can make some experiment with a centertapped puls-transformer. Have a nice trip to Ohio! Ted! On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Aug 12, 11:47 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers aren't MURDERERS" > [quoted text clipped - 123 lines] > > Ted! It seems that this issue for now has very little basis of reality - to better explain the mechanics of it read Popular Mechanics piece on it ---> http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4271579.html > On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > better > explain the mechanics of it read Popular Mechanics piece on it --->http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4271579.html Popular Mechanics is a CIA Rag. They don't believe Patent Boards. Why is that? Build a circuit you lazy a.s. On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:40:49 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: >> On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 139 lines] > > Build a circuit you lazy a.s. Look who's talking. JW, you've been posting this crap for about 10 years. If you were actually interested, you could have had a degree in EE and built it yourself by now. Or more likely, learned enough basics to understand the obvious errors and given it up. Instead, you just whine about how no one will build it for you. I'd think you'd have figured out by now that those competent to build it see why it can't work, and those incompetents who try are doomed to failure. Grow up. > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:40:49 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: > >> On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 150 lines] > > Grow up. Ward you idiot. Competent people ARE BUILDING WORKING CIRCUITS AND CELLS. Fool. > > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:40:49 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: > > >> On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > > Fool. Right and you sold them at Ebay and online, after a month of usage, the users see the real scam but it was too late to go after the seller. Some tried to sell off to others using the same lie. America is world #1 scammer, when a solid solution came along hitting their face, they don't want to come near it. Shame on the collapsing of the idiots. On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:36:00 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:40:49 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: >> >> On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 154 lines] > Ward you idiot. > Competent people ARE BUILDING WORKING CIRCUITS AND CELLS. Depends on your definition of "working". If you mean, "fizzes dramatically when power is applied", probably so. If you mean, "measureably increases overall vehicle efficiency", I don't think so. But let me know when you think you have proof. > Fool. You're the one that lost the 25 grand, not me. > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:36:00 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:40:49 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: [quoted text clipped - 164 lines] > > You're the one that lost the 25 grand, not me. And you are a misinformed LIAR. I didn't lose a dime. JW bought 1 license from Meyer for 5K and already made it back consulting. So. Why don't you do the experiment like the guy from Sweden and get off your lying a.s? On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:32:32 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:36:00 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: >> >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:40:49 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: [quoted text clipped - 176 lines] > Why don't you do the experiment like the guy from Sweden and get off your > lying a.s? Why should I? You claim people are already building successful units. I'll just wait till I see them in auto parts stores, and then get an objective performance report. But I don't see why you're pushing everyone to try the circuit if you actually have working units. Why would you care? > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:32:32 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: > >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:36:00 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: [quoted text clipped - 184 lines] > But I don't see why you're pushing everyone to try the circuit if you > actually have working units. Why would you care? To get people off the grid to quit paying the Banksters and Oil Barrons with their daily sweat. Duh. On Aug 22, 5:53 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:32:32 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: > > >> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:36:00 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote: [quoted text clipped - 190 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Get back to us when you have any credible test reports from any independent authority that show these HHO generators give any MPG increase when bolted on to a typical otherwise unmodified car. Don't you think it rather strange that in the whole wide world, not a single university, engineering organization, car maufacturer, truck manufacturer, etc has jumped on this simple HHO miracle device if there were any real basis for it? The car companies are under enormous financial pressure to bring cars to market that get better MPG. Any company or university team would be an instant star of the media everywhere, if they could show one of the HHO generators actually worked: XYZ University shows 20% MPG increase using simple HHO generator added to car. Instead, all you see are wild, unsubstantiated claims, usually from those pitching a product and not backed up by any credible science. As I've said before, the only thing I've seen that has any substantiation is that some intermal combustion engines using conventional fuels have been modified to use a small amount of hydrogen gas. This allows the engine to be tuned to run leaner, particularly at idle. And AFAIK, besides adding the hydrogen, these engines had to be tuned to run leaner, which would seem to involve modifying at least the engine control computer. After all that, the net result is a whopping few percent increase in MPG, which is exactly why it hasn't gone any further. The science behind that approach is staightforward, makes sense and doesn't violate laws of chemistry or physics. On the other hand, claiming to be able to split water into HHO by some miracle process and then get more energy back when it is later burned then it takes to seperate it does violate the basic laws. <snip> >> But I don't see why you're pushing everyone to try the circuit if you >> actually have working units. Why would you care? > > To get people off the grid to quit paying the Banksters and Oil > Barrons with their daily sweat. > Duh. So, what you're saying is... ...if I use this HHO generator, add it to my tornado fuel saver, grab one of those maginets for the fuel lines, add in the fuel block heater and throw some salt over my shoulder, I'd get a 250% increase in fuel mileage? Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > those maginets for the fuel lines, add in the fuel block heater and throw > some salt over my shoulder, I'd get a 250% increase in fuel mileage? Americans are dumb, they will try anything cheap even if it's not working (anything that sounds like working), until something stops their car, then they will realize their mistake. Now US is behind 15 other countries in education. The only thing America is good at is ...Word and War. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Americans are dumb, they will try anything cheap even if it's not working > (anything that sounds like working), ...says the one using Windows and Outlook Express... Pot > Kettle > Black > until something stops their car, > then they will realize their mistake. Now US is behind 15 other > countries in education. The only thing America is good at is ...Word and > War. "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick" Signaturewww.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org powered by the lizard: www.opensuse.org No, you just need to throw salt over your shoulder and you have a perpetual motion machine. DAS To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- [...] > ...if I use this HHO generator, add it to my tornado fuel saver, grab one > of > those maginets for the fuel lines, add in the fuel block heater and throw > some salt over my shoulder, I'd get a 250% increase in fuel mileage? >> On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Build a circuit you lazy a.s. You are the lazy a.s one. Back to school for you. I see that you didn't edit this time the claim about nuclear reactions requiring only high voltage to occur. You still don't understand the difference between an electron volt and a volt. Truly hopeless stupidity. FK > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > difference between an electron volt and a volt. Truly hopeless stupidity. > FK Now remind me why YOU DIDN'T TAKE THE ORIGINAL EXPERIMENTER/POSTER to task about HIS RESULTS AND COMMENTS about your ignorance of "nuclear reaction" created by "voltage.?" Why is that? Because YOU AND YOUR CRONIES are and always will be CHICKEN sh.t. Build a circuit. > > knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: > > >> On Aug 18, 6:21 am, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > >>> On Aug 12, 11:47 am, "Speeders & Drunk Drivers aren't MURDERERS" > > >>> <xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote: just love it? > > >>>>> "The process works by taking the electricity from yourcar's > > >>>> battery, and [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > > >> better > > >> explain the mechanics of it read Popular Mechanics piece on it --->http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4271579.ht ml > > > Popular Mechanics is a CIA Rag. > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Build a circuit. I already your a resonant circuit to split H2O that failed you idiot. It does not work! If you made it work then you put so much power which doesn't make sense to put 10 and get 1 out of it. > <knews4u2c...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 194 lines] > It does not work! If you made it work then you put so much power > which doesn't make sense to put 10 and get 1 out of it. That isn't the way it works. Build a circuit. Popular (CIA) Mechanix DIDN'T. > Don't you just love it? > > "The process works by taking the electricity from your car's battery, and > separating it into a gas known as HHO." > > I wonder what HHO is? Maybe H2O?... No, chemically HHO and H2O are two different things. HHO is two parts hydrogen gas mixed with one part oxygen. You know what H2O is (water.) The devices are useless for improving efficiency, but they do have chemistry part right. >> Don't you just love it? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The devices are useless for improving efficiency, but they do have > chemistry part right. I made a little one of these devices using a glass jar and some 1" diameter stainless steel tubing that I had lying around, I had to buy a piece of solid SS rod and had to turn down to the correct dimension. I just wanted to see if I could get a constant flame if I applied 12Volts across the electrodes. To my surprise it works, I get a small constant flame about .5" high. Whether it scales up for a car ??? The electronics of the controlling units have been thought through - but are way too hard for all but the most enthused electronics boffin. Most of the plans that I've seen on the Internet include the ability to increase the amount of hydrogen and oxygen produced as the throttle is pressed - instant fuel. Have low water alarms, ignition on/off, etc etc. If a vehicle was being built from scratch then it would be a substantially different setup, retro fitting I'm not sure that everything can fit under the bonnet of a modern car, and I'd be less than happy having a gas generator inside the vehicle. I have to admit to being a sceptic on most of these miracle cures for oil dependancy, but this MAY have potential. The chemistry/physics laws of you cant get more energy out than you put in are pushed to the limit - but I've been told that if you look at the amount of energy that goes into making stainless steel then its possible to come to grips with the amount of energy that is released with the use of water + electricity + stainless steel. Thats exactly how an oil refinery works - energy in does not exceed energy out. > >news:_ZCdncIkyZpBTDzVnZ2dnUVZ8s3inZ2d@pipex.net... > >> Don't you just love it? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I have to admit to being a sceptic on most of these miracle cures for oil > dependancy, but this MAY have potential. Let's see. The worlds auto makers, many of whom are losing bleeding red ink to the point where they may not survive and who have staffs of thousands of engineers aren't jumping on this. Think maybe they know something you don't? >The chemistry/physics laws of you > cant get more energy out than you put in are pushed to the limit - but I've > been told that if you look at the amount of energy that goes into making > stainless steel then its possible to come to grips with the amount of energy > that is released with the use of water + electricity + stainless steel. The amount of energy that goes into making stainless steel has absolutely nothing to do with this. But simple high school chemistry does. It takes energy to break the two hydrogen atoms away from the oxygen atom in water. This energy is supplied by the electric current via the alternator. And when you later recombine the hydrogen with the oxygen by burning it, you get back EXACTLY the same amount of energy that it took to seperate it. This is a classic experiment performed in high school chemistry. In addition, there are losses to due the combustion process not being perfect, heat loss, friction, etc, so the net result is it takes MORE energy to seperate the hydrogen/oxygen than you get back from it. In other words, this is nonsense, not far removed from the urban legend of the miracle 100 MPG carburator or magic pills that turn water into gasoline. There is a small amount of truth to adding some hydrogen to an internal combustion engine. Some experimental engines have been modified to use small amounts of hydrogen which then allow a slightly leaner fuel mixture to still burn. Besides just getting some hydrogen in there, I believe they also modified other parts of the engine, ie the fuel air mixture via computer controls, etc. After all that, they got a few percent improvement in actual mileage Scammers have taken that faint bit of truth and are using it to seperate people from their money with silly claims of doubling mileage, etc by electrolysis of water. > Thats exactly how an oil refinery works - energy in does not exceed energy > out. A comparison which has no revelance to the discussion at hand. Aw, c'mon... I have converted base metals into gold and built a perpetual motion machine... DAS To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- [...] The amount of energy that goes into making stainless steel has absolutely nothing to do with this. But simple high school chemistry does. It takes energy to break the two hydrogen atoms away from the oxygen atom in water. This energy is supplied by the electric current via the alternator. And when you later recombine the hydrogen with the oxygen by burning it, you get back EXACTLY the same amount of energy that it took to seperate it. This is a classic experiment performed in high school chemistry. In addition, there are losses to due the combustion process not being perfect, heat loss, friction, etc, so the net result is it takes MORE energy to seperate the hydrogen/oxygen than you get back from it. In other words, this is nonsense, not far removed from the urban legend of the miracle 100 MPG carburator or magic pills that turn water into gasoline. There is a small amount of truth to adding some hydrogen to an internal combustion engine. Some experimental engines have been modified to use small amounts of hydrogen which then allow a slightly leaner fuel mixture to still burn. Besides just getting some hydrogen in there, I believe they also modified other parts of the engine, ie the fuel air mixture via computer controls, etc. After all that, they got a few percent improvement in actual mileage Scammers have taken that faint bit of truth and are using it to seperate people from their money with silly claims of doubling mileage, etc by electrolysis of water. [...] > Aw, c'mon... > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > [...] Do you know all the details of the combustion process? and no it's not just a simple equation like: CH4 + 2 02 --> CO2 + 2 H20 + heat energy. If the tiny amount of H2 could react with another chemical in the combustion chamber to produce an additional exothermic chemical reaction, then it is possible that this process could make a contribution to the usual combustion. Can you prove that it's not possible? >> Aw, c'mon... >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >contribution to the usual combustion. Can you >prove that it's not possible? sure, easy, entropy increases always. That is, whenever you convert energy from one form or another you lose. Thermodynamics. So, sure, you might give the gas combustion a 'kick' by injection some hydrogen. Overall though, considering the energy required to produce the hydrogen etc, you will most assuredly not gain a thing but in fact lose energy - ie increase the entropy of the system. cheers ps sorry Dori for interjecting Terrible, terrible. It was such an intelligent conversation... ;-))) DAS SignatureTo send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- [...] > ps sorry Dori for interjecting > > Aw, c'mon... > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It would seem highly unlikely that the hydrogen is going to react with anything but the readily available oxygen to recombine back into water. I'd also point out that the demand for proof should be directed at the ones making the outrageous claims and selling products. Have you seen any independent review by any credible lab, science organization, magazine, news agencey, etc that says these things work? I have not seen a single one. Can I prove that an anti-gravity device is impossible? No. But show us a few credible scientific reviews of an anti-gravity device. Or the 100 MPG carb of urban legends of years gone by. And as I pointed out, it's virtually impossible to believe that if you can anywhere near the huge increases in MPG of 40 or 50% claimed for these bolt on hydrogen electrolysis units, that none of the worlds auto makers have shown any interest in this. You don't think there would be a market for a car that got 40% better mileage by adding a small tank and putting in some water? The fact that they aren't speaks volumes. The only thing that's at all credible that I have seen is that engines modified to accept a small amount of hydrogen can get improvements of a few percent in MPG because the engines can then be tuned to run leaner, particularly at idle. That makes perfect sense and is far different from the ridiculous claims being made for these bolt on widgets. Dori A Schmetterling schrieb: > Don't you just love it? > > "The process works by taking the electricity from your car's battery, and > separating it into a gas known as HHO." > > I wonder what HHO is? Maybe H2O?... In german it pronounces ha ha, oh. SignatureRoland Franzius Quite so! :-))) DAS To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling" --- > Dori A Schmetterling schrieb: >> Don't you just love it? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In german it pronounces ha ha, oh. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.