Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

Personally I've found that Brazilian women roll better spark plugs.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

lmao!

now

iTrader: (1)

Only reason I replied was because it was Apr 1st LOL

but back to the windmill thing, a person should be able to get a windmill
making some good power if it were attached to the roof of your car...
100 kilometers per hour + winds there at times!!
then connect that to the hho unit this way there would be no power loss caused
by the drag of the alternator....
Just doing my part to help.
Matt

blamming

haha, maybe thats my problem. I recently bought a BMW but can't wait to start driving my RX7, as soon as the snow melts off of it and around it.

swkiller

iTrader: (1)

so if you experimented with the hho gas what was the results, that is what everyone is interested in, did you get better gas mileage? any difference in performance? i hear people speaking of the hho yet i still cant find no one willing to share results.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

No power loss, beyond the aerodynamic drag of the wind-powered generator, plus the work done generating the current, plus the losses to internal friction and electrical resistance, since no generator is 100% efficient. Still ain't a free lunch.

I read a pile on this, starting with Mr. Cake's pages - I'm inclined to think this is automotive snake oil, and any real improvements in mileage are coming via vacuum leak leaning of the mixture - which in the case of a basically stock NA FC, might not be a totally bad thing, given their reputation for being pig rich. Better would be to slap an Rtek in and tune it, in that case, rather than having an unknown and uncontrolled lean condition, which is probably going to be worst at low rpm/low load cruise conditions - when the motor should be running it's leanest in stock trim anyway. A couple or so MPG improvement takes a long time to pay for a motor rebuild.

now

iTrader: (1)

OMG I was being sarcastic!

same as the hho cell pulling 30 or 40 amps from than alternator, the motor has to turn that.
didn't think I could make a comparison that could be more obvious or ridicules that a windmill on the roof.
guess I should watch what I suggest, might just see someone running around with a windmill
bolted to the roof of their car.
matt

Black91n/a

Man all that BS is stinking up the thread. You can't get a free lunch, HHO is nothing like those "examples" which are of fuel combusting or nuclear fission. All you're doing, more or less is charging a battery and expecting it to give you more power than you put into it.

IT WON'T WORK. If the combustion is so rich and terrible, FIX IT and get it tuned.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

Hey, easy there, no offense. It's a thread full of bad science. I figured it was sarcasm, but thought I'd head off yet another free energy tangent.

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

The reason you don't find anyone posting results is because it doesn't work. The same thing happens on my forum. Someone says how wonderful HHO is and how it is going to revolutionize how they drive. They talk about massive mileage increases and brag about how they are going to be rich when they start selling systems. They talk of conspiracies and suppressed technology, moving into the future, independence from oil companies and call everyone who doesn't believe "closed minded". When questioned they avoid giving answers and instead go onto an unrelated rant.

Of course, a little while later they just disappear from the thread because by that time they have built and tested the system, found it makes no difference, and aren't willing to face the "I told you so" from the rest of the forum for their stunning lack of basic science knowledge.

CompuBob

considering the little amount of hydrogen a system like this can make, like a good one could probably take 10 minutes to fill up a 2 liter coke bottle and the amount of air your engine sucks in during that same amount of time it's like farting in a stadium, no one is going to notice, and your engine won't notice the hydrogen either.

I don't think electrolosys is the way to go, some people are experimenting to use a plasma arc through water to create the hydrogen, this would allow you to inject water and have it ignited inside your engine, but like everything else it is just an experiment and we will probably never see it working in an engine for a long time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk...eature=related

84stock

iTrader: (5)

HHO has been proven to be a hoax over and over on tv programs, internet, etc. I wouldn't flame the original poster though, he saw potential, was convinced by someone else's success and had the ***** and ingenuity to try it out and the courage to post it into a forest fire of flames. If nobody ever tried and showed their efforts we would never have seen and heard the first few bridgeports!

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

But the thing is, bridgeports have valid real world backing and theory behind them that agrees with all physical laws. HHO does not.

HHO is best compared to something like religious belief.

Trots*88TII-AE*

iTrader: (11)

HHO, bridgeports and creationism all in one thread.


WIN

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

I try.

But I have noticed a major trend that HHO believers tend to be religious believers as well.

I get a major buttload of HHO related email due to my website, and so many forum posts that I've had to condense it all into one thread and ban the topic.

Trots*88TII-AE*

iTrader: (11)

hahaha, I didn't realize it was such a controversial topic, I thought it was pretty clear that it was a load of crap. Although, a lot of people now believe the power pulse plugs are the latest and greatest, I swear it's only a matter of time before I lose faith in mankind...

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

It's not that it's controversial, but that it's a major scam. Those who believe in it are continuing it without knowing. There are several people behind this but the more prolific is "Ozzy Freedom" of Water4Gas. He's known scammer, and has been for a very long time. Ozzy is not his real name...You can get all the horrid details from the thread on my forum linked above.

As for Pulstar, see my long debunking in the 2nd gen forum.

blamming

Here's an interesting video, can anyone debunk it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j7d-FJ7TQk

Trots*88TII-AE*

iTrader: (11)

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.

I always like your arguments, even though I don't usually have anything to contribute. Except your thoughts on post-secondary education, but I'll leave that alone.

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

There's nothing to debunk.

It's just the typical HHO junk, and a bit of trickery to shut the car off at the same time the hose was pulled. Wasn't worth the 5 minutes it took to watch.

Notice the link at the bottom of the video said "Overunity.com"? That tells you all you need to know.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

It's already done here in this thread, and in the aaroncake.net forum thread linked earlier. This is like the myth of the 200mpg carburetor that goes back to at least the 1930s - another popular myth of big oil suppressing technology to enslave us. Besides the fact the science doesn't support that there's enough energy content in a gallon of gas to propel a typical vehicle 200 miles at any speed. Most of the energy of gasoline is not lost to poor fuel burning in even early cars with crude carburetors and low compression engines - most of the energy goes to pumping losses (a throttled gas engine is a big vacuum pump), drivetrain friction, and at over 50%, waste heat, carried away by the exhaust and cooling systems and dumped to the atmosphere.

Truly making a big improvement in utilization of the energy content of gasoline would require engines that could run at temperatures that would seize or even melt today's engines. Such engines would make much less, or no use of cooling to carry away the bulk of the energy liberated by burning gasoline, as is the case now. Use of exotic ceramics, liquid sodium "cooling", and lubricants that can work at vastly higher temps are all part of what have been investigated - no breakthroughs yet that I've heard of, and I first heard of such research in the Eighties. I don't even know if much in the way of efforts are being directed this way - electric and hybrid cars are much more "real world" in the sense of making use of existing technology - they just tend to be expensive relative to straight gas or diesel tech. And in today's economic climate, I'd have to suspect automakers and scientists are focusing more on "science now" than esoteric materials.

Trots*88TII-AE*

iTrader: (11)

Hybrids are a load of crap. Current ones anyways. They fail solely due to the fact that they still rely on the inefficiencies of an internal combustion engine to charge their batteries. They don't take advantage of the true benefits of electrical vehicles, which is the more efficient production and distribution of electricity (the grid).

Aaron Cake

iTrader: (1)

I don't know...I'd say that getting 90-100MPG on the highway (65-75 MPG city) in my 9 year old Insight is pretty good. Though of course I would still rather plug in but that kind of mileage is an acceptable alternative.

Trots*88TII-AE*

iTrader: (11)

I don't disagree, but I think that all that does is make it a fuel-efficient vehicle, nothing more, nothing less. Now if you factor in the added costs, environmental damage, blah blah blah of the electrical motor system, including the battery, and compare it to a 50+MPG diesel or straight fuel vehicle, I'd take the latter looking at it as a whole. The Chevy Volt design on the other hand seems like a big step forward (if it ever happens, I'm not holding my breath) Or of course the Tesla Motors vehicles that are starting into production, which I think are great, however I think that like Smart they will have some issues getting production and dealership networks established.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

GM + Electric motors + cars = EV1

EV1.........well we'll just leave it at that

I. Hate. General Motors. They need to start building specific motors, not just general ones.