Home     Savings     Test Results     Technical Information     Newsletter     Order     Contact

 

Home

 

Savings    

 

Test Results

 

Technical Information

 

Testimonial Video

 

Demo Video

 

Newsletter    

 

Order    

 

Contact

 

 

 

 

Myth Busters

 

A prospective customer emailed me a while back and asked if I had seen the Myth Busters program that busted the myth of on-board electrolyzers.  My response follows:

 

I have not seen the Myth Busters episode but I also have absolutely no confidence in those peons.  If they tested a hydrogen generator ALONE I would not expect them to get any mileage increase, regardless of what 10 other companies will tell you.  Hydrogen Boost is a system, not just a hydrogen generator.  The whole system is required to get any decent mileage gain.  I would assume the "myth" that was tested is the claims of all the companies that sell just a hydrogen generator.  I would agree with the myth busters if they say that "An onboard hydrogen generator ALONE will not increase mileage as claimed by these companies."

 

I've said it for the 5th time today and probably for the 1500th time since 2000, "A hydrogen generator ALONE WILL NOT give big mileage gains."  To understand why please see www.hydrogen-boost.com/complete.html for details and explanation.

 

I have seen a 10% drop in mileage when I have lost operation of the hydrogen generator, like when a fuse burned out or it ran out of water, or when the hose was out of place. 

 

If the "Myth" was: "These on board electrolyzers don't make explosive gas (hydrogen and oxygen or Brown's gas)" then I would have to direct you to the video clip on our home page of three explosions, one in a zip lock bag, one in a soda bottle, and one in the hydrogen generator itself.

 

Fran

 

While we are on the subject of Myth Busters I would like to do a little myth busting myself.  I have answered the same questions too many times to not write a newsletter on a few myths.  We’ll address the following:

 

Can you run a car on hydrogen alone from an on-board electrolyzer? Can you run two or three electrolyzers to run the car on hydrogen alone?  Can you run a car on water?

 

Here is an email answer I gave to a question about the Hydrostar website:

 

The only experience I have with HydroStar is to read their web sites.  I have picked out at least four reasons they are FOS (full of s--t).

1.  You cannot run a normal gasoline vehicle on hydrogen without at least controlling the ignition timing so that it is no sooner than a few degrees before TDC (top dead center).  The timing of a gasoline engine is before top dead center by a big amount.  Hydrogen ignites too fast to allow this.  It would cause the engine
to attempt to turn backwards if the ignition timing was not greatly retarded.

2.  It takes hundreds of liters of hydrogen gas per minute just to idle a car engine, thousands of liters of hydrogen gas per minute to accelerate the car.  Have you ever tried to separate a large amount of gas from a small amount of liquid in a short amount of time?  Yes you have, when you opened a shaken bottle of soda.  What happened when you tried to separate about two liters of carbon dioxide gas from one liter of liquid in about one second?
It threw all the liquid out of the bottle, didn't it?  Now imagine getting 1000 liters of hydrogen gas out of the small container called the HydroStar in one minute (let me do the math for you; that would be 17 liters of gas per SECOND coming out of that one liter container).  And what's even worse is that its got to come out of that little tiny space between those stainless steel pipes.  That would mean it would be coming out from between those pipes like a fire hose, but without taking the water with it? I don't think so!

3.  Parahydrogen and orthohydrogen are not vastly different in energy content nor burn rate.  The main difference between para and ortho is that one will remain a liquid below the boiling point of hydrogen (cryogenic temperature) while the other form will spontaneously become a gas without reaching the boiling point.  Look up  parahydrogen and orthohydrogen in any textbook or on the internet and you will find this to be true.  Only false science wizards claim this false property of one form having vastly more
combustion energy than the other.

4.  If these guys had a real plan for free energy they wouldn't sell it for $45, they would sell it for $45 billion.

Don't get snookered,

Fran

 

Here is an answer to another email by another prospective customer concerning the recent video that aired on CNN and Fox News:

 

The video is deceiving.  It said that the car engine could be run completely on HHO (Brown's gas), which is true if the gas is produced by a huge electrolyzer pluged into the wall, but the gas cannot be is stored in a pressurized container and taken in the car.  And the car cannot be run on the gas being made on the fly in the car.  Of course they don't say that because they want you to
believe their electrolyzer is some miraculous invention, which it is not.  If they told the whole truth people would understand that its just an electrolyzer like all the others, and they wouldn't be getting all the attention.  Just like a couple years ago when Xogen was getting wide spread attention when they claimed they were producing over-unity quantities of gas with their pulsing electronic controller.  That too proved in the end to be false interpretation of their simple electrolyzer.  In fact they had the same efficiency as normal steady DC electrolysis.  Same thing goes for Kline.  In fact I am so unimpressed with Kline's patent, I am surprised it was issued.  Patents are supposed to be for "NEW" ideas.  His patent drawings look almost like carbon copies of the previously published and marketed Hyzor technology electrolyzer plans from George Wiseman of Eagle Research.  I doubt Kline's patent would ever stand up in court if someone copied his design and pointed
out the Hyzor plans to the judge.

 

Will pulsed DC current produce more gas than steady DC current?

I have seen many claims of over-unity gas production by people using pulsing DC but so far they have all proven to be misunderstandings of unity gas production.  Until someone can show over-unity gas production I am not interested in wasting any more of my time chasing after a golden goose. 

Xogen claimed over unity, they were only 75% efficient.

George Wiseman claimed over-unity.

Stanley Meyer claimed over-unity, which got all this hoopla about pulsing started, but at least Meyer's claim was supposedly with high voltage.  Check out what happened to Stan at these links: http://www.waterfuelcell.org/moreinfo.html and http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy.hydrogen/msg/c310437cd1cee1e7 .

The video I watched of Stanley Meyer’s great pulsed DC electrolysis demonstration showed no great amount of gas production.  Sure it fogged the water up with tiny bubbles but that's not a lot of gas production.  Same thing goes for the Xogen video.  You can tell by watching the top of the water level.  If it doesn't expand by a large amount, all the fogged water doesn't amount to a lot of gas.  Show me a gas production of two liters per minute in a one liter container and I'll show you an overflowing container unless it was only half full to start with.  Kind of like a shaken soda bottle when it is opened.  Don't be fooled by videos and claims.  To make lots of hydrogen out of water, you still have to get it out of the water and that is still the process of bubbles coming to the top and popping.  No hydrogen generator does that faster than ours in a smaller space that ours with less electrical power than ours.

As far as running a car on hydrogen from an on-board electrolyzer let us do some calculations:  A proper air to fuel mixture by volume for hydrogen combustion would be about 3:1.  That means that ¼ of the space in the cylinder must be hydrogen and ¾ must be air.  Taking a 4 liter 4 stroke engine at 1000 RPM you would have 2000 liters per minute going through the engine.  At 4000 RPM you would have 8000 liters going through the engine and 2000 liters of that would be hydrogen.  So to run the car you’d need a hydrogen production rate of about 2000 liters per minute.  There are about 36 liters in one cubic feet of space.  If you divide 36 into 2000 you would have to have about 56 cubit feet of space inside a properly designed electrolyzer in order to supply enough hydrogen to run the car.  That’s if you had the energy on board to split the water into hydrogen  and oxygen.  Actually you’d have to have 84 cubic feet because the oxygen gas would have to come out of the water as well as the hydrogen.  So if you could properly design an electrolyzer the size of the entire back seat and storage area of an SUV, you might be able to get the gases out of the water without sucking water into the engine.  But then there is the problem of the energy required to electrolyze the water, but I guess some people seem to think that pulsing the electrical power will do that miracle.  So a general rule of thumb would be the statement I typically say to most people who ask this question.  “To run the car on hydrogen produced by an on-board electrolyzer, the electrolyzer would have to be bigger than the car.”

Conclusion:  Myths Busted.  Nobody has proven over-unity hydrogen production yet.  To have an onboard electrolyzer producing the fuel to run a car, the electrolyzer would have to be bigger than the car.  Nobody has proven to me to run a car on water yet.  Pulsing DC is no golden goose.

Now if you visit the Water Fuel Museum you’ll see a car that supposedly ran on water, but it didn’t run on hydrogen produced from water on-board.  Herman Anderson, the builder of the car explained that he produced a nuclear reaction in his standing wave electrolyzer, and used radiolysis with soft x-ray radiation as well pulsed DC at 14 volts intermittently with 70,000 volts, to collapse hydrogen into Deuterium an essential component of nuclear fusion.  Then the produced Deuterium charged gas was mixed with a fine mist/cloud of water in the combustion chamber and “ignited” by the spark.  There may have been a release of nuclear energy in a fusion reaction in the combustion chamber.  This may have produced nuclear energy to run the car but it didn’t run the car on combusted hydrogen produced on-board. 

Another sign of a water car myth is when plans for conversion of a car to run on water spouts off about having to change to stainless steel valves and stainless steel exhaust system.  This is a sign of ignorance on the part of the author or the scam plans.  A gasoline powered internal combustion engine already has lots of water in the exhaust because it burns hydro-carbons containing hydrogen and carbon.  More than half of the exhaust products of burning gasoline is water vapor, and the other part is Carbon dioxide.  So if you see plans to run a car on water and it says you should change to stainless steel exhaust and valves, you know the idiot who wrote the plans knows nothing about chemistry.  Note that those plans also have very small “reactors” to change the water to hydrogen and oxygen.  Refer to the discussion above about the size of rector you would need even if you could carry the energy required to split the water.

 

Addendum January 2008:  The following is a part of a post on Yahoo group Water4gas by the most famous guy (Since Stanley Meyer) in the Run-a-car-on-water movement who has claimed to develop a method to run a vehicle on water only.  I think the truth speaks for itself.

 

http://members.shaw.ca/w.elliott/Club.html

 

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Water4Gas/message/252

 

From: Paul <Paul@ZigourasRacing.com> 
To: Water4Gas@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Water4Gas] ECM's (electronic control modules) by Paul Zigouras
Date: Oct 7, 2007 6:18 PM

 

….

 

Getting a motor to run on HHO gas is very easy; anyone can do that.  Getting it to run without killing the battery is what's almost impossible.  We've never seen any system that can run an engine with power to spare, other than Meyer's.  Even our best system showed a net loss at the end, and would not run forever.  You can't run a V8 on just 20% overunity, which is the most we've ever gotten out of HHO gas.  You can't even run it on 200% overunity.  You'll need at least 300% or more OU to get any usable power out of a standard chevy V8 engine (and that's assuming the engine is 30% efficient and the alternator is at least 80% efficient).  And those numbers are a strech, because older equipment is not quite as efficient as that.
 
- Paul

Apparently even Paul believed in the myth of Stanley Meyer who was convicted of fraud in Ohio over this whole water car charade.

 

Click here to ORDER NOW

Home    Savings    Test Results    Technical Information    Newsletter    Order    Contact

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Home

 

Savings    

 

Test Results

 

Technical Information

 

Testimonial Video

 

Demo Video

 

Newsletter    

 

Order    

 

Contact

 


Free counters provided by Honesty.com .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Help

Help

Help