You, being a really smart guy and all, will immediately see that gasoline contains a wee bit more energy than hydrogen gas on a volume basis.
Now, your 5.8 liter engine is consuming something on the order of 4500+ liters of air per minute at 2000 RPM, making that piddly 2 liters/min of H2/O2 gas (repeat after me - there is no such thing as HHO) an absolutely trivial amount. Yes, trivial, to the tune of .044%. Heck, this amount wouldn't even ignite on its own and certainly won't result in any fuel mileage gains, even if you were to ascribe some magical mysterious powers to it that it most certainly does not possess.
And don't forget, you're consuming more fuel driving the alternator to generate the amps required for the electrolysis in the first place.
Tell us again what you've done to the O2 sensor?
Oh, and learn to spell molecule. You are an enjunear after all.
Wilson - you have a problem with education? Maybe we should all walk blind like you my friend.
my "POS" is 13yrs old. It's a well polished POS, looks fairly good. Oh, and what is it you drive.....? Yeah, what do you owe on that nice 05 Excursion? I'll tell you, POS or brand new, they all drive better when you own um and the bank don't....
I got an email 9/28 from Dutchman with the announcement. Searched preignitioncc.com and the entire web for video of the CNBC interview with Mulally, and found it on this CNBC page: (launch button below Mulally's picture) http://www****bc.com/id/26674885/for/cnbc/
Mulally doesn't mention anything about hydrogen technologies involving water, nor does he mention any technologies that offer opportunities with engines already built. The CNBC site had 3 Sept videos posted with Mulally all on Sept 12. Same for all 3-- no mention of H tech with water or opportunities w/ exist fleet. I emailed CNBC to find out if the video contains the entire interview; no response yet.
On the Ford website:
Dan Jarvis
Communications Manager
Ford Motor Company
workoffice: 313-845-2709
mobile: 313-598-1179 djarvis1@ford.com
Today I sent the following email to Mr. Jarvis
************************************************** *************
Hello Dan,
I'm writing to verify if Ford Motor Co is working with Dutchman Enterprises/ Dennis Lee, exploring a possible Ford partnership with them on their hydrogen fuel enhancement equipment to increase fuel economy.
An email sent me from Dennis Lee of Dutchman Enterprises (PICC) states that Ford is working with them, testing their "HAFC" (Hydrogen Assist Fuel Cell) fuel economy technology, and may partner with them to use their equipment in Ford vehicles.
Excerpt of the 9/28 email:
'Ford and Dutchman have been talking and Ford finally gave permission for Dutchman to tell the public.. Last weekend a Ford executive spent hours speaking to dealers of Dutchman’s technologies at their convention. The initial reaction of the Ford team was excitement and enthusiasm over potential of both the HAFC and the PICC at improving fuel economy. Discussions have begun about partnering to further develop these technologies. Dutchman received a letter from the engineer heading up the Ford team to test the HAFC. In that letter from Corp HQ in Dearborn Michigan, the leading engineer wrote, the (HAFC) concept makes good sense.’
Further specifically, Dennis Drake who is a dealer of the Dutchman HAFC, wrote me that he was present at the NJ meeting of HAFC dealers where he met with Clifton Lambreth of Ford and got his copy of "FORD and the American Dream" Signed By Clifton Lambreth and Lee.
Dennis wrote that on Aug 18 Ford started w/24 HAFC kits testing 24/7. Sept 14 Ford ordered 24 more HAFC chits and a couple of cases of Covalizer. (Ford) now has 48 Platforms running 24/7.
It would be a great sign for Ford and consumers if Ford is open-minded seeking to explore any and all possible fuel economy methods, even ones previously considered by some to be "fringe". This company (Dutchman) has conducted marketing and communications in ways that do not help their credibility-- why I'm writing to verify what they're saying about working with Ford. Please elaborate in your reply, and thank you for your time.
Best regards,
my fullname
************************************************** ***
I'll post when/if I get a response.
-Mark
Oh, ok, now this is what I call proof, another 1st post bringing everything to light. How come the troll accounts multiply by the dozen in this thread?
__________________
2000 Excursion Limited 4x4 V10 - soon to not be stock anymore.
2004 F150 XLT screw 4x4 5.4 - 2.5 leveling kit, 34.5" BFGs - Gone
2004 mach1 mustang, holding the garage floor in place.
All of you on BOTH sides of the argument should feel sort of embarrassed about the whole thing.
MOST of you clearly allowed emotion to get in the way.
You will never shake the believers.
You will never shake the nonbelievers.
You will only turn away the people on the fence who were looking for real answers. What I mean is that new people to this Ford site will see this childish joke of a thread and NEVER come back to any part of the site again.
Now I know why the cool people stay in particular forums.
The laws and principles of all known science predict these things will not work. Period. That's just the way it is. Yet these clowns continue to slime this and virtually every other auto enthusiast site with their outlandish claims which fly in the face of all logic.
Experience has shown the true believers are beyond reach with regards to understanding or even caring about sound scientific principles. That one of the leading proponents (Dennis Lee) of this whole free energy scam and its various offshoots is a convicted fraud artist is irrelevant to them. Many have bloodied their foreheads aginst this inpenetrable wall of stupidity, and some mock them mercilessly. I, for one, have no problem with that. And in my mind, almost as bad as the scammers themselves are their enablers - people like you who whine about cruel and unfair treatment while claiming that 'we just want answers.' Oh boo-frickin-hoo. The answers are in the science. Either learn it yourself, or listen to those who already have.
I went back to an earlier comment in this thread where you stated “Matt hasn't given any visual proof for the positive, but neither has anyone else for the negative.” Those of us with actual backgrounds in science and engineering (and even many who at least paid attention in high school) don't need to prove anything and couldn't in any case because you can't prove a negative. If tomorrow you were claim “I can fly” it would not be up to me to prove this false. The entire burden of proof positive would fall upon you. The same holds true for those making claims they've discovered new states of matter, or new properties of existing matter, or new behaviors which challenge existing scientific laws. It's really quite simple. If these things were to work as claimed, there is a Nobel prize and untold billions of dollars to be earned, yet to date all we have are undocumented testimonials, YouTube videos and grammatically-challenged forum posts claiming success. Funny that.
So, in essence, you don't like it? Tough. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Nice Try maxc. wait now for the "nut uh" argument from the peanut gallery.
I like the smart guy's answer... "the laws and principles of all known science predict these things will not work". What laws are you refering to? Physics? Show us how you think the "laws" predict this dosen't work? Remember that the idea is to reduce the fuel, (lean it out), and add H2 to assist the combustion process. Kind of like the NO2 injection used for increased power (although NO2 is an O2 delivery system and we are talking about increasing cylinder temp and combustion rates). And please, use all the big words you can muster. It make you sound snooty and almost right.
And Monsta, I was talking to a friend of mine today about our discussion of energy from H2 Vs auto Gas. He's not college material, but common sense to the core. He made a good point though. He said, "If auto fuel is so much more powerful, why don't they use that in rockets instead of liquid H2?" Yeah, I should've thought of that. I guess I'm not a smart as they say.
monsta - and the other comment about " how HHO increases air?" Hmmm.... I ment that the fuel air ratio is changed. I'm not sure where this is from. I'll look back on the posts and see what your talking about later. But HHO increases air by reducing fuel. One component of the HHO is O2. The only agent that fuel burns with in your cylinders. However the O in HHO is consumed by the reaction of HHO and the "heat of fusion" (look it up) to make HOH (AKA water). So maybe it's missleading a bit to say that the HHO directly increases the air volume in the cylinder. Instead what I should say, Because the HHO exists in the cylinder, fuel (auto gas) is reduced and air reclaims the void. HHO does not fuel the engine. It's the reaction, HHO --> HOH, that creates the heat to increase the auto fuel (let's just call it GAS) combustion. Have you ever looked at air fuel ratio for a diesel?
Sorry about the name calling. I just get frustrated with folks who don't add to the discussion only try to ag on conflicts.
You, being a really smart guy and all, will immediately see that gasoline contains a wee bit more energy than hydrogen gas on a volume basis.
Now, your 5.8 liter engine is consuming something on the order of 4500+ liters of air per minute at 2000 RPM, making that piddly 2 liters/min of H2/O2 gas (repeat after me - there is no such thing as HHO) an absolutely trivial amount. Yes, trivial, to the tune of .044%. Heck, this amount wouldn't even ignite on its own and certainly won't result in any fuel mileage gains, even if you were to ascribe some magical mysterious powers to it that it most certainly does not possess.
And don't forget, you're consuming more fuel driving the alternator to generate the amps required for the electrolysis in the first place.
Tell us again what you've done to the O2 sensor?
Oh, and learn to spell molecule. You are an enjunear after all.
Tell me about it. I couldn't spell my way out of a papper bag.
You sound kind of smart fella, tell me what do you burn in your engine, GAS (liquid)? or is is more like GAS (vapor).
Apples to apples, H2 liquid Vs GAS liquid.... Try 12,200 Wh/kg GAS and 39,000 Wh/kg for Liquid H2. (by weight of course) So you were saying smart guy? Once again, Rocket don't use GAS, they use H2.... Guess thay should switch to unleaded, huh?
Now, have you gotten the feeling that your seconds from the world's biggest idiot calling you a dumb a$$.... I've been there many times. -- Well let me tell you about the last time. I was testing the output of HHO (H2) from the generator. The process involves (2) 2 liter bottles with a hose coming from the generator to the top of the air tight cap on the first bottle. There is a second hose coming from the bottom of the air tight bottle, thru the cap and to a second bottle that is not air tight. (no lid at all) As H2 is produced it pushes the water down and through the 2nd hose to the second bottle. Now what I have after the test is one bottle full of water and the other full of some gas. ( I once was a non believer too). So I took the test kit out back of my house. I lit a cigerett and thought about lighting the "H2" gas. I opended the air tight cap and laid the bottle on it's side, letting some of the gas excape (it almost looked like a vapor).... feeling that it was mostlikely not wouldn't produce a strong reaction, I put a lighter up to the gas and struck it. The resulting explosion burnt the hair on my forarm, half way up to my elbow. The concussion felt like it was going to push me over and actually pushed the gate (located at the opening end of the bottle) shut.
But you maybe right, it can't explode. If you'd like, you can stop by and try it for yourself. But remember, it's your turn to light it.
But if you go by volume, Gasoline has 9,700Wh/L and liquid Hydrogen has 2,600Wh/L.
__________________
2005 Excursion Limited 6.0L, Hellwig Rear swaybar, Bilsteins and RAS.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you've got no business laughing at others.
The energy content of LIQUID hydrogen is irrelevant. We're talking about working with low pressure GASEOUS H2 & O2 mix. Several Hy-boost promoters falsely claim that the energy content of oxyhydrogen gases is higher than gasoline.
P.S. I didn't try to prove something nor try to sell anything.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
