> Browns gas is result of electrolysis of water H20 > HH0. Energy
> available in browns gas is less than energy input to electrolysis.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> battery - better have some jump leads ready. Electricity to re-charge
> battery costs more than fuel.
>On May 18, 11:50 pm, Peter Hill <peter.usen...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>Cliff
WASTE energy? Only waste energy from internal combustion engine is
noise and heat. Neither can be used to dissociate water into browns
gas.
Only thing that can make browns gas is electricity. That can only be
obtained from the alternator driven by the crank or by draining the
battery. There is no "FREE" excess alternator generation, draw more
power from the alternator, it draws more power from the crank. The
additional load to drive the browns gas generator means more fuel has
to be burnt to drive the alternator.
1000 watts of fuel power = 250 watts (~20A @ 12v) of crank power =
237.5 watts of power for browns gas generator = 215 watts of browns
gas. 1000w - 215w = 785 watts of fuel power expended to run a browns
gas generator. That's over 1 bhp worth of fuel going nowhere near the
road, or heater fan or screen heater or stereo. It's like running with
an extra rear screen heater switched on all the time.

Signature
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!
nucleus - 20 May 2008 12:06 GMT
On May 19, 11:54 am, Peter Hill <peter.usen...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:38:19 -0700 (PDT), Redigoogle
>
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> additional load to drive the browns gas generator means more fuel has
> to be burnt to drive the alternator.
what you are describing is the "first law of thermodynamics".
> 1000 watts of fuel power = 250 watts (~20A @ 12v) of crank power =
> 237.5 watts of power for browns gas generator = 215 watts of browns
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Peter Hill - 21 May 2008 00:21 GMT
>what you are describing is the "first law of thermodynamics".
Tell a layman that it's the "first law of thermodynamics" and it means
nothing, so they will still put their faith in a convincing charlatan.

Signature
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!
Redigoogle - 20 May 2008 17:05 GMT
> >On May 18, 11:50 pm, Peter Hill <peter.usen...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> WASTE energy? Only waste energy from internal combustion engine is
> noise and heat. Neither can be used to dissociate water into browns
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> obtained from the alternator driven by the crank or by draining the
> battery. There is no "FREE" excess alternator generation,
Thank you for this clarification.
Personally, I consider the question of Brown's Gas for supplementing
auto fuel resolved.
My thinking really points to the essential ingredient
of any successful scam. The pitch "sounds" good because it draws
upon certain "facts" that are true, but always leaves out some
primary element in order to conjure a hopeful but unrealistic
solution.
Thanks again, Peter
Cliff
John Henderson - 20 May 2008 22:19 GMT
> Thank you for this clarification.
> Personally, I consider the question of Brown's Gas for
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> out some primary element in order to conjure a hopeful but
> unrealistic solution.
Another aspect of these scams is that some people who buy their
products want them to work so much that they drive very
carefully and economically to get the most from their
investment.
So their mileage improves just because of that driving-style
change, and they turn around amd endorse the product as a
result.
John
Redigoogle - 21 May 2008 15:49 GMT
> > Thank you for this clarification.
> > Personally, I consider the question of Brown's Gas for
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> John
That's a good point John. Then there is the purely subjective
evaluation as well.
I mean, my vehicles always run better after I thouroughly clean them
inside and out.
Really. Doesn't your's?
Cliff
willshak - 21 May 2008 17:34 GMT
on 5/21/2008 10:49 AM Redigoogle said the following:
>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
> Cliff
>
A clean car runs better! Or so the car wash industry says. :-)

Signature
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @