The government doesn't and shouldn't set the prices of fuel, and there isn't much they can do in the short term, anyhow.
Maybe not but they could set some regulations like they do for other things like cigarettes and power from the electric company. They need to close out the Enron loop hole effect! Tons of articles on this topic.
Um um.. well its good for experimenting I guess. But to the original Question at the top.. My answer is still no that is not a scam so to speak, but not the most efficient electrolyzer.
Still think there is a future for it though,
Alex
ALEX,
I got one of these generators form a guy and installed it on 7/03/08 and so far my mileage has increased from about 11-12 MPG to as high as 20.5 MPG so I know for sure it works,
I think the Government should focus on the real scam...the price of fuel and freedom.
AS Ben Franklin said a long time ago " They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty."
Um um.. well its good for experimenting I guess. But to the original Question at the top.. My answer is still no that is not a scam so to speak, but not the most efficient electrolyzer.
Still think there is a future for it though,
Alex
Alex
I bought one of these from a guy and installed it on 94 Ranger on 7/3/08 and my MPG has gone from 11-12 mpg to 20.5mpg, so I know it works.
Old Chinese prover says: " Man who says it can't be done should not get in way of man who is doing it."
You'd get the same results by adjusting the O2 sensor reading and watching how you drive. That's basically all you've done. I guarantee you if you put a wide-band sensor on it that its running too lean and its eventually going to burn a valve.
There's another saying "a fool and his money are soon parted".
Talking with people who don't understand basic middle-school physics is getting old. A Ranger should be able to get 20 without any devices when you drive it properly --- I know because I have one.
__________________ -Ken
If you need to get in touch with me email me at ftsservice at gmail dot com or via AOL IM: motorhavenken. The best is yet to come....
You'd get the same results by adjusting the O2 sensor reading and watching how you drive. That's basically all you've done. I guarantee you if you put a wide-band sensor on it that its running too lean and its eventually going to burn a valve.
There's another saying "a fool and his money are soon parted".
Talking with people who don't understand basic middle-school physics is getting old. A Ranger should be able to get 20 without any devices when you drive it properly --- I know because I have one.
Maybe you have to much book learnin and not enough or no common cents or you really don't know vehicles as well as you think you do
Considering I tuned literally thousands of Fords running one of the largest tuning retailerships in the country, I'll put my real world experience up against your test any day and will back it with cash.
How about we have a wager? With the device turned on, and with it turned off on a dyno, on your truck. $1000 or $500 bet (whichever you want) and the loser pays for dyno time. I wager there is no statically significant power difference with HHO, all other things being equal. We both put the money in an escrow account and an arbitrator awards it to the winner.
__________________ -Ken
If you need to get in touch with me email me at ftsservice at gmail dot com or via AOL IM: motorhavenken. The best is yet to come....
Alex
I bought one of these from a guy and installed it on 94 Ranger on 7/3/08 and my MPG has gone from 11-12 mpg to 20.5mpg, so I know it works.
Just for reference, on flat roads, I can get 18+ mpg in a '95 Bronco with a 5.8L engine, and without any hocus-pocus. (EPA rating 12/17)
In '94 the Ranger came with 2.3L and 3.0L engines, with highway ratings between 21 - 27 mpg. city ratings between 17 - 22 mpg. So if you got 11 - 12, that means either some terrible driving conditions, or something bad about engine control.
Just for reference, on flat roads, I can get 18+ mpg in a '95 Bronco with a 5.8L engine, and without any hocus-pocus. (EPA rating 12/17)
In '94 the Ranger came with 2.3L and 3.0L engines, with highway ratings between 21 - 27 mpg. city ratings between 17 - 22 mpg. So if you got 11 - 12, that means either some terrible driving conditions, or something bad about engine control.
WOW, I have never seen any 5.8 or 5.0L for that matter get more than 14MPG in any truck body style. Your doing well. My 89' 351CI only got 10-12MPG no matter how easy I was on here and had no balls either. I prefered my 4.9L any day back then.
__________________
FORD MASTER DIESEL TECH
ASE MASTER, L1
HEAVY TRUCK-DIESEL, ELECTRONICS
'03 F350, CC, 8', 6.0L, LARIAT-SPARTAN SCT, 5" SILVERLINE COOL DUALS
'96 EXPLORER, 4DR, 5.0L, XLT
'05 SKI-DOO REV ADRENELINE
'86 FORD 555 LOADER/BACKHOE
'03 VTX1800C
Net efficiencies of the entire system, broken down in parts
A turbocharger in the exhaust system violates the law of thermodynamics.
Here is why. A turbo clogs up your exhaust, and the engine has to work harder to fight the restriction in the exhaust. This causes your engine to overheat and run lean. Anyone who runs a turbo charger should go to jail. It takes more energy to spin the shaft of that turbo.. the energy has to come from somewhere. Oh wait, the energy is transferred from the heat and we have lots of heat....Uh so that must be transferring energy then. But turbo chargers add more heat to the engine, causing more wasted heat! Oh darn, more heat makes the turbo spin more for us, and darn that causes the engine to run even hotter. Eventually this heat causes pre-ignition and blows up the fuel in the fuel lines since they got so hot. Darn. But we can still battle.
Ahh so let us calculate the net gains of adding a turbo. Yes it can make the car run leaner, yes it can make it run hotter. But one can add water to the engine with a water injector to cool the engine down. Ahh but that water causes the engine to rust.... ah... but let us calculate the net efficiency. We can fight the rust too, with platinum or... again let us then calculate the net efficiency.
Well, the turbo charger is in the exhaust system and is blocking the engine up, making the pistons do more work? This costs more gas and causes the car to lose power. Breaks law of thermodynamics? Turbos are fraud? No, just transfers energy into more efficient work areas within the system. The turbo charger is like a second engine running, which happens to be more efficient than your first engine since the turbo is such a simple device. A turbo is simpler than your big Iron engine, and hence is more efficient, and hence improves the efficiency of the engine if you designate more work to the turbo at the right time. Yes it makes the entire system run hotter too, which means the turbo and the oil will have to be replaced maybe more often. But a mountain that has lava coming out of it can stand a lot of heat too, so if your engine is already built in a way that it can resist a lot of heat, then you might as well make use of this instead of put it to waste. In other cases it is not worth it and you would melt the plastic door panels and the tires on the wheels. It depends!
What we have to look at with this hydrogen system is the transfer of energy that is happening, toward the ALTERNATOR. Key word here is not hydrogen, but alternator. If your engine is 1 percent efficient and your alternator is 30 percent efficient, and your turbo is 30 percent efficient, it makes sense to move the work into the more efficient parts of the system.
What is happening is you are using a secondary engine. Your alternator is a simple engine like a turbo charger, with less complexity than your real engine. Since the alternator is so simple, and so cheap, it makes sense to transfer the load into the alternator just as it makes sense in some cases to transfer your load into the turbo. Yes the turbo will be warn out, will heat up the oil, and yes there are people who think that turbos DECREASE your engine efficiency... because it plugs up the exhaust system. How can a plug in your exhaust system help! Well again think about the TRANSFER that is occurring. You are making use of more efficient parts of your entire system. A horse with a broken leg, your engine, is not as useful in your horse cart system as the other healthy horse. If one figures a way to get the more healthy horse to do more work, and one lessens the load on the sick horse.. then the system efficiency (net) is increased.
This breaking down the system into different efficiency portions concept is very important, because often car companies ship cars with built in parts which are not made use of, but they are efficient. An alternator is one example. Similarly, my turbo charger may be sitting in my front seat and would be useless there on the cushion doing nothing. It would add extra weight to the car. Once I hook the turbo up to the exhaust, the story changes, since you are now making use of that available effiency which netted more than your inefficient engine.
S simple student would argue that hooking up a turbo to your engine will just cost you more mileage since you cannot gain more power buy hogging down the engine with this plug in your exhaust system! But that simplistic view is why people do not understand the fact that alternators are actually just an additional engine sitting in your system, which yes is inefficient, but NOT AS inefficient as your actual engine. In other words what is happening is a tweak of the system.
STOP THINKING ABOUT HYDROGEN and focus for a minute on what I am saying here. This is about your alternator and how it is part of your inefficient system, but how the alternator is a more efficient overall than the clunky big steel engine... do you understand? Similarily, a turbo is a simple device that is very effecient. Engines are too complex, while turbos and alternators are simple. If replacing the alternator or turbo every few years is cheaper than buying fuel then it works out that it is worth it.
So just stop for a minute and ignore hydrogen. One of the ways to solve problems is to ignore, and focus. Being too simple minded means you will immediately ban anyone who comes up with the idea of a turbo charger, because obviously it would take more gas from the engine to spin the turbo charger. In fact, a transfer of energy is occuring from one area to another - the alternator and turbo happen to be more efficient areas, so it makes it worthwhile to move out some of the work to those areas. You are working your productive men, and laying off your less productive men. That is all that is happening.
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. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
-Ken
