| Author | Message | ||
     Swordsman |
Hey guys. I'm posting this around various forums on the off-hand chance someone is actually interested in HHO generators. While I'm open to the idea behind the technology, that's not what I'm posting about. I tried to ask some questions to fuelfromH2O.com, a company that produces these HHO generators, and was appalled at the responses I got. This is a "buyer beware" post... check out the attitude of the "sales department". Below is a record of the correspondence I recently had with fuelfromH2O.com. Me: Hello! I have a few questions about your products and how they operate. 1.) If the produced hydrogen is "burned", how does it become H2O again? The hydrogen should be missing at that point, no? 2.) Have there been any cases of engine components rusting? 3.) Have there been any studies to see if there are long-term side effects from using HHO in an engine? 4.) What happens if you let the water run out while the engine is operating? Anything? 5.) I'm not clear on the differences between your products. Are the microprocessors better, and if so, why? Why would I need 4 bricks over a single brick? Thanks very much for any information you can provide! ~Cliff Them: Go back and review your 9th grade chemistry book, the answers are there. Check the electron levels and what happens with sub-diatomic hydrogen when combined with oxygen during combustion. Me: Yeah. I'll do all that. And then buy from someone else. That was a very rude response, and only addressed one of my five questions. Wouldn't a simple explanation have been worth at least $400? Apparently not. Them: okay, we are not chemistry teachers, we hold no classes on basic chemistry. we don't instruct, teach or hold your hand. I suggest you go and ask someone else the fundementals of sub-diatomic hydrogen combustion principles see if they will take several hours to teach you what you could learn on your own if you made the effort. Me: You're also not good businesspeople. Or businessperson, as I suspect. If you were, you would indeed take a few minutes to "instruct". It was a simple question that only required a simple answer, not a freakin' thesis paper. I'm utterly amazed at the arrogance you show toward potential customers, considering the fact that there are instructions to build kits very similar to yours freely available. The reason I asked you is because there is no general consensus on how this works, or if it works. If there was, 50% of the information available wouldn't be calling it a scam. Yours is not the first website I've consulted. Enjoy the bad press you're about to receive. ------------------------- Can you believe that? I dunno how they expect to convince people to pay $400-$1000+ for a product with that kind of customer service. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up, since some of you may be interested in alternative fuel sources, and shopping around. ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on June 10, 2008) | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
"okay, we are not chemistry teachers, we hold no classes on basic chemistry. we don't instruct, teach or hold your hand. I suggest you go and ask someone else the fundementals of sub-diatomic hydrogen combustion principles see if they will take several hours to teach you what you could learn on your own if you made the effort. " If the losers WERE chemistry teachers, they would understand that their product does nothing but waste time and money. You only get out what you put in. The electricity that splits the water up into H2 and O gas is produced by your car's alternator. What turns your alternator? Is your alternator 100% efficient? Is your engine? Is your transmission? At best, you will not notice any difference either improvement or worsening of your economy. This is like those dumb magnets that people put on fuel lines to "magnetize" your fuel. They only stay in business because people see "Hydrogen" and think it's somehow related to fuel cell technology. Sorry about the rant but when I read about these morons, I want to shove their heads down toilets! | ||
| Rotzaruck |
They don't want your questions, they want your money. It's obvious if they get the former, they won't get the latter. I hope, anyway. Rotzaruck! | ||
| Buelliedan |
I agree, they do not want to answer your questions as they know the product is a scam. If it really worked they would be happy to answer your questions. But when you posed those questions they knew you were smart enough to realize the prodcut was nothing but bunk. Don't get me started by the way on Fitch Fuel catalysts | ||
| Swordsman |
Heh, funny you mention the Fitch... buncha' guys over at allfordmustangs.com trying that out, without much luck. I've looked into this some more, and I finally understand it. Water is simply a carrier for energy. The HHO generator pumps electricity into the water. The water deals with that by splitting up. When a high enough temperature is applied (aka "burning"), the water reverts to its previous form, and the energy it carried is released. The question is: where did the original energy come from? Was it "wasted" energy that would have been created by the alternator anyway, or did the engine have to compensate? How much wasted juice does an alternator produce, if any? ~SM | ||
| Benm2 |
Trouble is, there appears to be some validity to the claims. While the old conservation of energy thing holds true, it looks like the addition of hydrogen directly into an engine that's already burning hydrocarbons CAN produce a cleaner burn. (Standand I researched this for 15 minues on the internet disclaimer) While this particular individual is (at least) an example of poor customer relations, its tough to say its an outright scam. It might be a semi-valid piggyback scam that's making the tech look bad though. It begs the obvious question though: if its so easy, then why isn't everbody already doing it? Either its pioneering tech that will be shortly coming into its own, or testing at Ford (GM, toyota, chyrsler, et al) has shown an extensive increase in exploding intake manifolds... | ||
| Reepicheep |
Alternators on cars have a field coil instead of a permanent magnet, and they only consume as many horsepower as they need to maintain an appropriate voltage. And besides, 1 HP is 746 watts, so even if your car was "throwing away" 1500 watts, then you are still only talking about 2 HP, which is what, 1 or 2%? Even if you got all of that back, its not going to magically double your mileage. Maybe if I run the water over the fitch fuel catalyst before I run it to the HHO generator, and then feed it into my vortex tube, I'll do even better. My only problem will be shutting down the chain reaction and dumping all that free energy before the car explodes. | ||
| Hootowl |
Reep, none of that will work unless you magnetize the water first. | ||
| Zane |
Reepicheep, "...if I run the water over the fitch fuel catalyst before I run it to the HHO generator, and then feed it into my vortex tube..." That one sentence is the best description of the secondary stage of the Flux Capacitor I read in a very long time. | ||
| Swordsman |
I now totally concur. Just ran across a forum that was debating the power consumption of daytime running lights, and that info, combined with some amp-watt calculations, leads me to believe it's all a bunch crap. While it's totally possible to create an HHO generator with virtually no drag on the electrical system, that amount of hydrogen would be pretty much useless. Thanks for the input! ~SM (Message edited by Swordsman on June 10, 2008) | ||
| Azxb9r |
One other question that comes to mind would be"How much current does it take to do this ?" The harder you ask your charging system to work, the shorter its life is going to be. | ||
| Swordsman |
Aha. I knew someone somewhere would do the calculation: http://reviews.ebay.com/Why-quot-Water-as-Fuel-Hyd rogen-Generators-quot-are-Unrealistic_W0QQugidZ100 00000007502630 ~SM | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
oops! let's try this again from scratch. Every car should have one of these to go with the flux capacitor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MercuryArc-Rect ifier.jpg | ||
| Swordsman |
I want one. Gonna' mount it on the roof and drive around at night playing the Bee Gees. ~SM | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
This guy may be on the right track with regard to recovering energy loss from a conventional engine. http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE | ||
| Reepicheep |
Hey! That last one is pretty cool. At least his math works. Understanding 1 HP =746 watts makes you appreciate just how freaking powerful these tiny little motors really are... My 2 HP router scares the crap out of me, and my XB9 is 78 HP. Yikes! | ||
| Thumper74 |
But imagine just how much you could trim with 39 times more power... | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
That six-stroke engine is brilliant. Has it ever been applied to a vehicle yet? I've only seen it run in his lab. | ||
| Rfischer |
Uh, before he get's too far along with his brainstorm, he might want to look up the patent Smokey Yunick got for his "Hot Vapor" motor. I suspect there may be a little infringement here. Smokey's gone of course, but he sold the rights to the technology in the 70's and I'm sure someone still has it. Some motors were built and tested in Buicks. | ||
| Natexlh1000 |
I looked up the "hot vapor" engine. It's not the same thing. The six stroke squirts water into the hot cylinder, making steam that expands. The vapor engine is a modified intake on a four stroke. I think the advent of smart fuel injection made the vapor engine's methods obsolete. The six stroke engine wouldn't have a radiator or cooling fins. The heat would be used in the water stroke to harvest a bit more energy. |
