I know this is going to fuel the fire for Monsta.... I'm going to have to put the test with igotoneforya back another week. It's just a matter of time, I have none.

I'm a small business and when it rains, it pours... I'm taking advantage of having work while I have it. I'm sure you'll understand. I'm also sure this will bring out the ridicules as well.

"MIT, yeah right"? Yes, MIT... what do you want? WTF do I have to give you to prove it? I could give you loads of info.... but how do you argue with, "yeah right".... anything I gave you to prove I'm an MIT grad, you'd just say... Yeah Right. What's the point Monsta.

And what do you know about Thermodynamics, physics or even mechanical engineering. Please share "Professor". You talk it, can you walk it. Didn't think so.

The engine design we are talking about is so inefficient it's hard to believe that net power output would be positive.... Enter the fuel. The amount of energy in one mole of fuel (mole: refer to Avogadro's number) is much more than our engines use. That's dino fuel. So what happens to the rest of that energy, given off as heat?, still exists, exhausted as whole fuel from the exhaust? Well the cat burns it, so we can say it's used up in heat (useless heat) Now compare one mole of water or HHO gas (same same). 2.992 x 10¯23 grams, kind of small huh? If you figure up the size of one mole of fuel, much larger, way over 100 time. So in a reaction, there will be more molecules per gram of HHO gas than molecules of fuel per gram. So, yes there is more energy in HHO than fuel.

Now we know that a spark that is more centered in a cylinder gives a better flame propagation and gives us more power/gas mileage (lame efficiencies). So by adding an explosive gas to the fuel vapor, when the gas has more heat energy and a "quicker" reaction rate, you get faster flame propagation and thus, more power/gas mileage from the fuel your using. I can prove this, with out changing the fuel curve of my truck via the computer (optimizer) I was getting 20% increase on fuel efficiency. The theory is supported by the results. But 20% isn't 28mpg... that's where the leaning of the fuel comes in. You can safely lean out the fuel, as long as your using the lower amount of fuel completely (well as close as possible). The problem you run into with lean fuel is when you have too much air, not being used in the reaction. The HHO is increasing the amount of air used in the reaction by more completely burning the fuel (gasoline).

Now that is all off the cuff, but feel free to fact check... please Monsta, I look forward to your intellectual incite.... "Bull"

Now wasn't that all a bit geeky? and totally not necessary.

 

I just looked back through this thread. Most of my posts are deleted. WTF? There was nothing outrageous in them, just calling that 6686 guy out on his rudeness. When you remove some of the discussion from a thread in a pick-and-choose manner, it makes it hard for someone coming in to figure out what is going on. Seems kinda dumb.

 

That's like a pun right? Listen, no worries. Your test drive will not prove anything to me. HHO doesn't exist...well...in reality. And I'm not going to question your credentials or education. That was out of line. It's just your writing doesn't seem like was developed at such a prestigious educational institution.

Gasoline contains MORE hydrogen than even liquid hydrogen! How will hydrogen gas contain more energy??

The claim is that HHO has more energy but this claim is suggesting that HHO has MORE ENERGY THAN ALL THE SINGLE ATOMS ON THEIR OWN! The stuff would be totally unstable and therefore doesn't exist.

Gasoline & diesel have the highest energy densities of all auto fuels. How will replacing some of it in the cylinder with a "fuel" of lower energy density yield a higher output?? And how does this "HHO" compound increase AIR!?



This is tiring. Do/say what you want.

It's a shame really. This scam is really taking a lot of people's money.

 

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.
<o></o><o></o>
Excerpt of the 9/28 email:<o></o>
'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.’

<o></o>
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

 

Monsta is a party-pooper. Water is part hydrogen. Proof of how good hydrogen is for your motor,....they tried water injection in World War II and it worked - enabled higher "dynamic" compression ratios without "detonation".

Seriously, for those of you who do not know, the big World War II aircraft engines had VERY LOW "static" compresson ratios, meaning, around 5 to one. Their actual OPERATING or "dynamic"compression ratios were way up there, since most were super-charged, some were turbo-super-charged, with "manifold pressure" red lines WAY up there - 60" in some cases. I would take a rough guess and say they were close to 10 to one. Water injection DOES work.

So why not water hydrogen injection ? I mean, pour a little seltzer water on those tablets of hydrogen BEFORE you feed that to my horny squirrel...? I have tablets of hydrogen for sale. Two for one sale. Five bucks each. Send cash.

Monsta - I think you are being way too mean to these guys. And you are way too suspicious. I know a guy whose brother works at a MacDOnalds who knows a guy whose aunt has this 1943 Edsel Pick Up truck, and she got over TWO HUNDRED FIFTY miles per gallon from my horny hydrogen-fed squirrel....

 

= = = = = = =

You are a liar. I am never rude. I am kind and sweet-dispositioned and absolutely charming and reasonable and open-minded. Your posts probably were deleted because you disagreed with me. Now..admit it, you just WISH you were as handsome and meek and mild and sweet-dispositioned as me...

 

Man I knew I should have started a pool on whether the test would have been cancelled again. I could have used the money for gas and not worried about having some fancy thing that will give me 100mpg

 

It's a shame really. This scam is really taking a lot of people's money.[/quote]


Ken,

I agree with you.
Amazing how many fall for these scams. All the money spent over the years on fraudulent high mileage devices from the "fuel flow magnets to this HHO farce" would have bought a lot of fuel.
Some need to look around really hard and try to find the "common sense" they lost a long time ago.

 

I said it before and I'll say it again ITS A SCAM and will not achieve 100MPG, and if people want to believe this and waste money they can throw some my way I can take it just a well.

 

Well said!
Have them send some money my way too!

BTW. I have a source who will sell them some fuel line maggots, er... I mean magnets that will get them an additrional 50 mpg. !

 

my understanding is that the reason injecting water has nothing to do with the hydrogen or oxygen content of the water, but just that it cools the combustion chamber and airstream, which leads to greater air density, which allows for more oxygen into the chamber --> better burn and more power

 

Yea sure, I have these little white tablets they can drop in fuel tank and gain 50MPGs

LOL

 

You have it correct. I have used it first hand in my SC'd mustang.

HTRF150-
I always tell my wife and kids that your name on a piece of paper from a prestigious school don't mean crap (successful doctors aside). No college here, just a lot of common sense.

You have proved my theory once again.

 

also,

Why is it that everyone who gets this to work 'correctly' is driving a 10yr old POS?

Lets see it running on a new car

 

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....

Why Buy A Used Car?

I'm seeing folks talk about the HAFC getting 100mpg... I don't know that you could get 100mpg in a SUV with the HAFC. I'm saying 28mpg on my Truck with an HAFC.

Now, Monsta.... look at the element chain for a molocule of auto fuel. The size is huge. Look at the molocule chain for water or hydrogen. Very small. Now, not only will the reaction of H2 and O2 happen faster, but much hotter than a complex hydrocarbon and O2. I don't know why your stuck on this idea that gas has more energy than even a pure hydrogen and oxygen mix? It's obvious that your not understanding what I'm telling you. So where are you seeing auto fuel having more energy than HHO? (the actual URL or location of the information, please don't try to explain it again)

Monsta - HHO, is a description of the H+ and OH- ions given off durring the electrolasys. The reaction when they are burnt is what gives off the heat and makes HOH (water). Same Same Bro.

And the test will happen. As long as time permits. With the market as wacked as it is... I'm not giving up one day of work to prove what I'm getting on fuel mileage to a bunch of folks who have said " your test drive will not prove anything to me".

As for the rest who are waiting to hear results, thanks for not joining in with the a$$es posting just to complain. I want the results verified as much as the next user, believe me. I would love to set the "Scam" notion to rest.