Run your car on water??????

[Angus]

And why would they do a thing like that ?

[SD67]

Bucks baby, bucks.
Big oil wants them, Congress trades in them, you pay them. If they can't get the bucks, you don't get the funds.

[Angus]

So, bucks. Well I know, just nice to have somebody else stating it

[Maverick]

So when were these wonder carb patents purchased? If they were in fact purchased there would still be info in the patent office about them.

[Bones]

isn't it funny though, that engineers, and ""smart"" people said man would never fly, and a pair of bicycle mechanics put an airplane in the air?

Most people, regardless of education, do not have the attitude or ability, whatever you want to call it, to look at something with the perspecitve needed to be able to invent things.

First, you have to have a native creative streak a mile wide.  Next, you have to be able to look at something and instead of finding ways to say, "It cannot be done", you look for answers to the question "Why?".  That question will compel the inventor to study and read about the topic and exhaust all available research data before beginning to postulate "How?".

There are many intelligent people on this board, but it appears most lack the proper attitude to be an inventor.  Some do seem to have it in spades and that is a good thing.

You have to have a lot of drive and determination to be an inventor.  Being an engineer is much easier.

So when were these wonder carb patents purchased? If they were in fact purchased there would still be info in the patent office about them.

The supposed "wonder carb" is available today.  Anyone can purchase it online.  It does improve gas mileage and is a much simpler design from what I have read about it.  I cannot find the link at the moment.  It was something I stumbled on quite by accident looking for something else one day.

[Holden McGroin]

Well duh captain obvious. I didn't realize I had to spell that out for you, but OK. To make my statement perfectly clear for everyone. As long as the engine is running the alternator is producing electrical power.

Better?

Yes it's better.

The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...

This is BS.

The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.

The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency.  Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%.  Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.

All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.

So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen.  So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.

Brown's gas is BS





 
   

 

[LYNX]

So when were these wonder carb patents purchased? If they were in fact purchased there would still be info in the patent office about them.

Sorry....couldn't find the exact link that highlighted Fords purchases from the 1970 and back but have a chew on this 2 page link.

http://befreetech.com/suppressed_inventions.htm

[CAP1]

Most people, regardless of education, do not have the attitude or ability, whatever you want to call it, to look at something with the perspecitve needed to be able to invent things.

First, you have to have a native creative streak a mile wide.  Next, you have to be able to look at something and instead of finding ways to say, "It cannot be done", you look for answers to the question "Why?".  That question will compel the inventor to study and read about the topic and exhaust all available research data before beginning to postulate "How?".

actually, this statement in my opinion is only partly correct.
most that say "it can't be done" have done exactly that. they've read all they can find on the subject. this in many cases "creates" the "it can't be done" attitude.
 it's best when you have an idea, that hasn't been tried a thousand times before, to just go inn and figure out how to do it.

 i never say it can't be done. i always go at things trying to figure out how i can do it. sometimes i do, sometimes i don't . i'm never so proud that i turn a deaf ear on anyone on the subject that i'm working on. i'll also be tie first to ask for help with something when i need it......two minds are much much smarter than one......

There are many intelligent people on this board, but it appears most lack the proper attitude to be an inventor.  Some do seem to have it in spades and that is a good thing.

i agree here. i think i could pick out at least a half dozen on this thread alone that are most likeley much more intelligent than i am.
i don't believe they lack the proper attitude though. they simply let their own intelligence work against them. they also have read and allowed their minds to become contaminated with the "it can't be done" mindset.

You have to have a lot of drive and determination to be an inventor.  Being an engineer is much easier.

The supposed "wonder carb" is available today.  Anyone can purchase it online.  It does improve gas mileage and is a much simpler design from what I have read about it.  I cannot find the link at the moment.  It was something I stumbled on quite by accident looking for something else one day.

<<S>>

[CAP1]

Brown's gas is BS





 
   

 

aaaaaand in this case that BS is green with pictures of presidents on it

[Hornet33]

Yes it's better.

The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...

This is BS.

The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.

The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency.  Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%.  Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.

All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.

So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen.  So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.

Brown's gas is BS





 
   

 

Sorry to say it but your math and undestanding of what is happening is wrong. We've tried to explain what is happening 20 different ways from Sunday yet you still persist that is can't be done. OK I'm fine with that. No one is asking you to build one. No one is asking you to believe or not.

I've seen what these things CAN do. I've seen the proof of what they do. I understand what is happening, so I'm building one.

[LYNX]

Yes it's better.

The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...

This is BS.

The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.

The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency.  Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%.  Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.

All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.

So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen.  So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.

Brown's gas is BS

and this makes no sense to you ?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense.

[Angus]

The alternator is not making excess energy. Only the "fixed costs" of the belt (law of friction) would count.
So, I still have to see the logic of where exactly the car engine makes this feasible. IMHO a powerplant would be better of, with vastly better control, and lots of excess energy at times due to grid fluctuations....
More or less, I go with what Holden just said.

[CAP1]

and this makes no sense to you ?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen, shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense.

maybe try it this way?


we all know it's going to cost us more to make the hho than the btu's we getout of it.

we're combining the hho with the gasoline. so since the range is said to be 20% to 50% increase in mileage.

we'll go on th low side.

say it costs us about 5% loss of effeciency in the engine to do this. but we gain 20% by the result.(with all the cars systems working together)

 hornet,
when they ran the tests on the dyno, did they have a way to determine just how much load extra this will put on your trucks systems?

[Elfie]

Yes it's better.

The point is that there are a lot of people here talking about excess electricity produced by the alternator...

This is BS.

The alternator just is the last step to converting gasoline to electrical power.

The gasoline is changed into kinetic energy at maybe 35% efficiency.  Then it puts that energy to the alternator drive belt at (lets be generous) and say 90%.  Then the alternator converts its spinning with another (being generous again) at 90%.

All this B S extra energyfrom the alternator is just an energy conversion from gasoline to electricity at .35 x .9 x .9 ... 28.5 % efficiency.

So you waste 70% of the heat energy in the fuel to make the electricity to go thru another 90% (another generous conversion efficiency) conversion to make hydrogen.  So now we see that it takes 4 btus of gasoline to make 1 btu of hydrogen.

Brown's gas is BS





 
   

 

This is all fine and dandy.....except.....the engine is already running the alternator regardless of whether or not a hydrogen conversion system is in place. There is extra capacity within that alternator that is not being used. Some of that extra capacity still won't be used even with the addition of a hydrogen system.

[Hornet33]

I honestly believe Holden MUST be a corporate CEO of an oil company or auto company and he's reading these threads in absolute terror that his income is going to dry up if the word gets out that we can run our cars with less gas (in the case of Oil CEO) and do it cheaper than the auto companies could do it (in the case of auto CEO) because it's all open source information and they can't patent the device.