Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
4/18/2021 9:59:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 5/19/2008 4:57:16 PM EDT
Sorry if this is a dupe, however with $4/gal gas in Austin I was thinking about converting my 18mpg av 2000 GMC jimmy to this.
www.hydro4000.com/

Anybody have experience with this?

Link Posted: 5/19/2008 5:00:54 PM EDT
You are kidding, right? Please say your kidding.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 5:01:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 5:02:03 PM EDT
no free lunch brother.

It takes a shit ton of energy to do electrolysis, such amounts of energy are not available on an automobile. (well they are, just not at the levels you need)  

You WILL get a very small amount of hydrogen from that device, however its barely enough to fill a balloon an hour.

So, save your money.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 5:02:26 PM EDT

Quoted:
You are kidding, right? Please say your kidding.


It really works!!

You see, it lightens your wallet by $1200 so therefore you carry less weight and get better fuel economy...
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 5:38:04 PM EDT
Maybe this will help... I doubt it being the GD, but it's worth a try.

This is a news report from WPTV, Channel 5 in West Palm Beach, FL:
www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28




Link Posted: 5/19/2008 5:48:32 PM EDT

Quoted:
Maybe this will help... I doubt it being the GD, but it's worth a try.

This is a news report from WPTV, Channel 5 in West Palm Beach, FL:
www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28



Umm, you do know that WPTV is sponsored by the company and that in 2 different vehicles they got the exact same fuel economy.

You believe whatever you want to believe...
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 5:58:21 PM EDT

Quoted:
Maybe this will help... I doubt it being the GD, but it's worth a try.

This is a news report from WPTV, Channel 5 in West Palm Beach, FL:
www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28






Sorry... I live here... that channel (5) is not known for their "accuracy in reporting".. not much better than the weekly world news for real.. Their "paper" is even worse..
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 6:39:21 PM EDT
I have been, and most of the other people on a local forum, battling a few nuts that showed up and think that these devices and the water as a fuel concept are the latest and greatest.

Any other ammo people want to give me to shoot them down would be great I already used a bunch of stuff from the "water as fuel" thread.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 8:29:43 PM EDT
Interesting... so, even ignoring the type of research that Jonathan Goodwin is doing with hydrogen injected, vaporized vegetable oil diesels, this is bunk?

It would seem that there would be a crime being committed, focusing on deceptive trade practices, etc.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 8:36:57 PM EDT

Quoted:
Interesting... so, even ignoring the type of research that Jonathan Goodwin is doing with hydrogen injected, vaporized vegetable oil diesels, this is bunk?

It would seem that there would be a crime being committed, focusing on deceptive trade practices, etc.


not bunk. H injection is fine and works, just as long as you have sufficient quantities...such as in a compressed cylinder. But you will NEVER get sufficient quantities off of a hydrogen generator running off of a car alternator/battery for electrolysis. Its just not possible.

Link Posted: 5/19/2008 8:45:55 PM EDT
In order to get Hyrdrogen to burn in regular vehicles, FIRST OFF you need a better cooling system.

Hydrogen burns very hot, and would overheat your engine quick.



Secondly, in order to "burn" hydrogen in enough quantities to get the same effect as gas, it needs to be compressed, and cooled to liquid state, at -252 degrees C (-485 F for you guys), and then put in a tank that is almost perfectly insulated against temperature so you dont have to use the energy to freeze the H2. Not to mention strong enough to contain liquid hydrogen.





Dont even get your hopes up. BMW is designing a Gas or H2 capable engine into their new 7 series, and the gas tank is the hardest part to get right. IIRC the 7 series is the most expencive series BMW makes.


A retrofit would be nearly impossible... Just get a hybrid car, and get better fuel economy.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 9:11:25 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Interesting... so, even ignoring the type of research that Jonathan Goodwin is doing with hydrogen injected, vaporized vegetable oil diesels, this is bunk?

It would seem that there would be a crime being committed, focusing on deceptive trade practices, etc.


not bunk. H injection is fine and works, just as long as you have sufficient quantities...such as in a compressed cylinder. But you will NEVER get sufficient quantities off of a hydrogen generator running off of a car alternator/battery for electrolysis. Its just not possible.



i have no disagreement...assuming you're trying to run completely off of hydrogen.  But this system is only intended to use hydrogen to improve the burn that is already taking place.  The real question is whether or not the energy you lose producing the hydrogen is compensated for by the more efficient use of the gasoline.

I remember "cracking" water in chemistry way back, and while it was by no means fast, you could produce a decent quantity in a fairly short period of time.  Unfortunately i don't know how much hydrogen you'd need to optimize the burn, but the concept at least seems feasible to me, in theory.

All that said, i don't have 1200 to throw away on untested tech right now.
Link Posted: 5/19/2008 9:25:22 PM EDT

Quoted:
In order to get Hyrdrogen to burn in regular vehicles, FIRST OFF you need a better cooling system.

Hydrogen burns very hot, and would overheat your engine quick.



Secondly, in order to "burn" hydrogen in enough quantities to get the same effect as gas, it needs to be compressed, and cooled to liquid state, at -252 degrees C (-485 F for you guys), and then put in a tank that is almost perfectly insulated against temperature so you dont have to use the energy to freeze the H2. Not to mention strong enough to contain liquid hydrogen.





Dont even get your hopes up. BMW is designing a Gas or H2 capable engine into their new 7 series, and the gas tank is the hardest part to get right. IIRC the 7 series is the most expencive series BMW makes.


A retrofit would be nearly impossible... Just get a hybrid car, and get better fuel economy.



from what i'm reading it's also injecting some water vapor, which will bring cylinder temps back down.  Does it completely offset?  No idea.

And again, the idea here is that the hydrogen is merely an accelerant, not the entire fuel source.
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 10:08:51 AM EDT
jBullfrog understands the technology.

From my perspective; it would seem criminal to me for them to sell this, due to deceptive trade practices laws. Would it not?
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 12:30:50 PM EDT

Quoted:
jBullfrog understands the technology.

From my perspective; it would seem criminal to me for them to sell this, due to deceptive trade practices laws. Would it not?


You can't seriously be that naive...  Have you ever heard of the Tornado? Slick 50? They don't work.  Don't get all butt hurt because we are telling you the truth.  

The ONLY thing that has shown some fuel economy improvement is the Fitch Fuel Catalyst and even then it's minimal.

Think about it this way, a normal car uses like 500-600 CFM of air to run down the freeway.  In order for this unit to produce enough H2 to be effective, it would have to produce several cubic feet of H2 per second.  A unit that small can't possibly produce enough H2 without drawing WAY more NRG than it produces.  There is no free lunch when it comes to NRG.

In the world of diesel trucks they have a similar unit that injects propane into the combustion cycle.  It drastically increases the MPG of the truck, however they are able to use LPG which is a FAR greater volume of fuel than what electrolysis can produce.
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 12:44:24 PM EDT
That news station either lied their asses off, or there's some serious shenanigans going on.

On the dyno - I have a VERY difficult time believing that a Durango with absolutely zero wind resistance, and not pulling it's own vehicle weight could only manage 9mpg at 55mph. I'm sorry, but RIGHT THERE, I'm calling bullshit.

The results from the road test (where they saw 16 or so with the Hydro 4000 installed) just so happen to be about what I'd expect for mixed fuel economy in a Durango.

There's no way in hell a Durango on a dyno  is sucking down a gallon of gas in 9 miles at cruise. Total bullshit.
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 12:45:02 PM EDT
Stop screwing around with junk science, and go with the PROVEN technology.

Link Posted: 5/20/2008 12:46:24 PM EDT

Quoted:
Sorry if this is a dupe, however with $4/gal gas in Austin I was thinking about converting my 18mpg av 2000 GMC jimmy to this.
www.hydro4000.com/

Anybody have experience with this?



You could convert your GMC Jimmy into a Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla and get mid to upper 30's in the mpg dept.

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 12:48:20 PM EDT

Quoted:
That news station either lied their asses off, or there's some serious shenanigans going on.

On the dyno - I have a VERY difficult time believing that a Durango with absolutely zero wind resistance, and not pulling it's own vehicle weight could only manage 9mpg at 55mph. I'm sorry, but RIGHT THERE, I'm calling bullshit.

The results from the road test (where they saw 16 or so with the Hydro 4000 installed) just so happen to be about what I'd expect for mixed fuel economy in a Durango.

There's no way in hell a Durango on a dyno  is sucking down a gallon of gas in 9 miles at cruise. Total bullshit.


I agree. Everyone I know get 11-12 mpg's in their Durango's unless they are in heavy city traffic.

BigDozer66
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 12:48:26 PM EDT
Cool, I think I will have to order a "hydro5000" for my truck
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 9:11:44 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
jBullfrog understands the technology.

From my perspective; it would seem criminal to me for them to sell this, due to deceptive trade practices laws. Would it not?


You can't seriously be that naive...  Have you ever heard of the Tornado? Slick 50? They don't work.  Don't get all butt hurt because we are telling you the truth.  

The ONLY thing that has shown some fuel economy improvement is the Fitch Fuel Catalyst and even then it's minimal.

Think about it this way, a normal car uses like 500-600 CFM of air to run down the freeway.  In order for this unit to produce enough H2 to be effective, it would have to produce several cubic feet of H2 per second.  A unit that small can't possibly produce enough H2 without drawing WAY more NRG than it produces.  There is no free lunch when it comes to NRG.

In the world of diesel trucks they have a similar unit that injects propane into the combustion cycle.  It drastically increases the MPG of the truck, however they are able to use LPG which is a FAR greater volume of fuel than what electrolysis can produce.


Butt hurt for asking a question?
And besides, how on earth could you dismiss lowered friction from something like slick50?

I used to run it in my Mustang 20 years ago, the moment I put it in I thought my temperature gage was broken, and saw a noticeable increase in fuel economy.... how does that "not work"?

But hurt... really... ???
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 9:17:29 PM EDT

Quoted:
That news station either lied their asses off, or there's some serious shenanigans going on.

On the dyno - I have a VERY difficult time believing that a Durango with absolutely zero wind resistance, and not pulling it's own vehicle weight could only manage 9mpg at 55mph. I'm sorry, but RIGHT THERE, I'm calling bullshit.

The results from the road test (where they saw 16 or so with the Hydro 4000 installed) just so happen to be about what I'd expect for mixed fuel economy in a Durango.

There's no way in hell a Durango on a dyno  is sucking down a gallon of gas in 9 miles at cruise. Total bullshit.


Point taken... but what about the increase in economy?
Say it goes from 9mpg to 23, or 23 to 45, or 1 to 1.4... an increase is an increase, is it not?

Maybe the dyno test assumed a high density altitude with a boat attached too it, I'm just guessing... but my point is that injecting propane, water vapor, or hydrogen into an internal combustion, reciprocating piston engine appears to increase thermal efficiency.

If that is not true, I'll put some money on it.
I'll wager the price of the install and equipment that - once installed - my truck will see an increase in fuel economy, on average, over a period of weeks after retrofit.

Any takers?
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 9:52:35 PM EDT

Quoted:

Point taken... but what about the increase in economy?
Say it goes from 9mpg to 23, or 23 to 45, or 1 to 1.4... an increase is an increase, is it not?



None of your examples are credible.  The Hydro's only purpose is to separate you from your money by playing off of your fears.  

If ANYTHING got a 40% increase in fuel economy, it would be national news.  As it is, they have one, discredited, source.  If this devise worked, you would see reports from NHTSA or hell even Popular Science/Mechanics, Car & Driver, anything.  

You want to throw away $1200, be my guest, but don't say you weren't warned.

And yes, you are acting all butt hurt.
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 9:56:41 PM EDT

Quoted:

Butt hurt for asking a question?
And besides, how on earth could you dismiss lowered friction from something like slick50?


Umm because many sources MUCH more credible than you have said that Slick 50 was nothing more than snake oil.  The suspended PTFE was simply deposited in your filter.  

Although PT Barnum never said it, it still holds true.  There really is a sucker born every minute.  
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 9:57:54 PM EDT
i was thinking this thread was going this direction.........
Link Posted: 5/20/2008 10:49:58 PM EDT
If you are going to quote me, don't be a GD douche and mis quote me.

I put slick50 in my cars years ago, it lowered under hood temps and increased MPG, at least 2pmg if I remember correctly.

As far as my challenge... feel free to take me up on it.
I'll put it in my truck just to take your money.

Put up, or walk away like a coward... it's that simple.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 4:43:33 AM EDT

Quoted:
If you are going to quote me, don't be a GD douche and mis quote me.

I put slick50 in my cars years ago, it lowered under hood temps and increased MPG, at least 2pmg if I remember correctly.


I'm guessing you don't as if that REALLY happened, you'd be the ONLY one that Slick50 worked for...  There are too many experts (IE not some loudmouth in the internet) that say Slick50 is the debil.  Sorry if I take their word over someone with zero credibility.  Besides, there is also the fact that many MAJOR engine rebuilders won't take in an engine block that used Slick50 so the most expensive part of your engine becomes disposable AND it's life is shortened because it's oil filter is constantly clogged.  So before you spout off and call me a "GD douche", open your ears and listen to what OTHER people have to say.


Quoted:
As far as my challenge... feel free to take me up on it.
I'll put it in my truck just to take your money.



My father always told me to walk away from sucker bets, so I'll think I'll pass on a bet that I can't verify where the money is being spent and/or the results from said money.  Since you control all the variables EXCEPT my money, you have zero credibility and you've proven that you have no problem buying every snake oil product that flashes across your idiot box, I'll keep my money safe in my bank, thank you.

You came in here looking for an opinion of this product.  Several people have told you that there are too many things that don't make sense, IE the numbers look too good and the technology they present doesn't seem to match the capabilities they are claiming, however you choose to ignore those people and blindly claim they are against you and how stupid they are.

If you already had your mind made up, why ask the question, except to stir shit?  I'm guessing your just another troll trying to bilk some other sucker out of their money.  Take your shell game elsewhere.


Quoted:
Put up, or walk away like a coward... it's that simple.




8th grade called and said you're late for school

Link Posted: 5/21/2008 5:16:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 5:34:55 AM EDT

Quoted:
If that is not true, I'll put some money on it.
I'll wager the price of the install and equipment that - once installed - my truck will see an increase in fuel economy, on average, over a period of weeks after retrofit.

Any takers?


I won't take you up on it, but I'd love to see a thread detailing the install, etc.

You sound convinced. Go for it.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 5:38:37 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
If that is not true, I'll put some money on it.
I'll wager the price of the install and equipment that - once installed - my truck will see an increase in fuel economy, on average, over a period of weeks after retrofit.

Any takers?


I won't take you up on it, but I'd love to see a thread detailing the install, etc.

You sound convinced. Go for it.


You're a coward for not taking him up on it...  I don't want to get called out for not quoting him entirely again
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 5:46:38 AM EDT

Quoted:
Point taken... but what about the increase in economy?
Say it goes from 9mpg to 23, or 23 to 45, or 1 to 1.4... an increase is an increase, is it not?


And increase is an increase, if there was actually an increase.

If they miscalculated the mileage during the baseline, and correctly calculated the mileage afterwards, it's not a valid test. You're assuming they performed the tests identically each time, and I'm saying they goofed somewhere. Example:

I fill my tank until the pump clicks off, then go for a ride. After a tank, I fill it again and calculate the mileage. It comes out to 15mpg. I then hang a dream catcher from my rear view mirror, and drive another tank. I fill the tank again until the pump clicks off, and calculate the mileage to be 28mpg. Wow! It really works!

But then later, I learn that the pump I used shut off a bit too early. I didn't put quite enough gas in the tank, and it made it look like I consumed less gas than I really did.

I don't know exactly what's going on with the news station's test, but something went wrong when during one of their tests - probably the baseline. The fuel economy they observed with the device installed is about normal for a Durango in mixed driving, if you take it really easy.

$1200 is not an insignificant amount of money to me, so I tend to be careful before parting with it. If you don't mind kissing it goodbye in the event that it turns out to be BS, then by all means indulge. I'm genuinely curious to see how it works for you, and I'd love to see lots of pictures during the install.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 7:12:49 AM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Point taken... but what about the increase in economy?
Say it goes from 9mpg to 23, or 23 to 45, or 1 to 1.4... an increase is an increase, is it not?


And increase is an increase, if there was actually an increase.

If they miscalculated the mileage during the baseline, and correctly calculated the mileage afterwards, it's not a valid test. You're assuming they performed the tests identically each time, and I'm saying they goofed somewhere. Example:

I fill my tank until the pump clicks off, then go for a ride. After a tank, I fill it again and calculate the mileage. It comes out to 15mpg. I then hang a dream catcher from my rear view mirror, and drive another tank. I fill the tank again until the pump clicks off, and calculate the mileage to be 28mpg. Wow! It really works!

But then later, I learn that the pump I used shut off a bit too early. I didn't put quite enough gas in the tank, and it made it look like I consumed less gas than I really did.

I don't know exactly what's going on with the news station's test, but something went wrong when during one of their tests - probably the baseline. The fuel economy they observed with the device installed is about normal for a Durango in mixed driving, if you take it really easy.

$1200 is not an insignificant amount of money to me, so I tend to be careful before parting with it. If you don't mind kissing it goodbye in the event that it turns out to be BS, then by all means indulge. I'm genuinely curious to see how it works for you, and I'd love to see lots of pictures during the install.


Fair enough, let's plan out a way to make the bet official... I'll contact my old attorney from when I lived in Dayton and see how we can do this, since we live in different states.

I'm assuming that a non-biased 3rd party will need to verify.

I'll be happy to have an emissions test before and after, on video, in addition to driving around between fill ups like you recommend, as that is truly the only way to know what your economy is.

Like you, I was always skeptical about this... however after watching videos about what Jonathan Goodwin is doing with vaporized straight veggie oil and hydrogen injection into duramax diesel engines... I've had to take this a bit more serious.

Let's figure out what we are betting 1st:

My truck gets 17 in town, and about 23 on the highway... which in my mixed driving makes me see about 19mpg. It's a 2000 GMC Jimmy 2WD SLE 4dr, with the 4.3L V6 engine. What fuel economy increase, or lack thereof, wins the bet?





Link Posted: 5/21/2008 7:47:44 AM EDT

Quoted:
What fuel economy increase, or lack thereof, wins the bet?



If you buy it, you'll have already lost...

No one is going to take you up on your "bet".  It's a fools bet as you control all of the variables and we have no idea who your "independent" people are.  

No one here is going to pay for your snake oil man... Get over it.

ETA: This sounds like the exact scam in the movie The Flim Flam Man...
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 7:58:07 AM EDT

Quoted:
Fair enough, let's plan out a way to make the bet official... I'll contact my old attorney from when I lived in Dayton and see how we can do this, since we live in different states.

I'm assuming that a non-biased 3rd party will need to verify.

I'll be happy to have an emissions test before and after, on video, in addition to driving around between fill ups like you recommend, as that is truly the only way to know what your economy is.

Like you, I was always skeptical about this... however after watching videos about what Jonathan Goodwin is doing with vaporized straight veggie oil and hydrogen injection into duramax diesel engines... I've had to take this a bit more serious.

Let's figure out what we are betting 1st:

My truck gets 17 in town, and about 23 on the highway... which in my mixed driving makes me see about 19mpg. It's a 2000 GMC Jimmy 2WD SLE 4dr, with the 4.3L V6 engine. What fuel economy increase, or lack thereof, wins the bet?
a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/EVOX/2000/GMC/2000.gmc.jimmy.20209484-E.jpg



Man, enough with the bet stuff. I'm not taking you up on it. If you want to purchase the unit and install it, go right ahead. I'm interested in reading about the experience.

If you want to hang out in Ohio for a few days, we can install and test it together. Then, I might be interested in a bet. If anything, it would be nice to test this independently, take some videos of the experience and post it.

But I don't have $1,200 laying around. Apparently, you do. I'm genuinely interested in how this works out for you, so do me a favor and purchase the thing. You're willing to make a bet, so it seems to be like you honestly believe this will work. If this is true, then you're going to make your money back. So purchase it.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 8:55:49 AM EDT
I would call Gale Banks Engineering and ask about Jonathan Goodwin,
if there is anybody who is a true master of diesel engineering it would be Gale Banks.
Go here: bankspower.com/bio.cfm
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 9:08:24 AM EDT

Quoted:
That news station either lied their asses off, or there's some serious shenanigans going on.

On the dyno - I have a VERY difficult time believing that a Durango with absolutely zero wind resistance, and not pulling it's own vehicle weight could only manage 9mpg at 55mph. I'm sorry, but RIGHT THERE, I'm calling bullshit.

The results from the road test (where they saw 16 or so with the Hydro 4000 installed) just so happen to be about what I'd expect for mixed fuel economy in a Durango.

There's no way in hell a Durango on a dyno  is sucking down a gallon of gas in 9 miles at cruise. Total bullshit.


A+ for your post.  The Dyno was putting a load on the engine, reducing it's efficiency.

55 mph with zero resistance?  I would expect mileage in excess of 16 anyway, at low RPMs from a high gear.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 12:00:55 PM EDT

Quoted:
I would call Gale Banks Engineering and ask about Jonathan Goodwin,
if there is anybody who is a true master of diesel engineering it would be Gale Banks.
Go here: bankspower.com/bio.cfm


I've met him before... he's a nice guy.
Jonathan Goodwin is doing some pretty cool stuff, however, on his own merit.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 12:06:26 PM EDT
Except when you get rear-ended you car will kaboom worse than Glock with hand loads.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 12:06:51 PM EDT

Quoted:
Man, enough with the bet stuff. I'm not taking you up on it. If you want to purchase the unit and install it, go right ahead. I'm interested in reading about the experience.

If you want to hang out in Ohio for a few days, we can install and test it together. Then, I might be interested in a bet. If anything, it would be nice to test this independently, take some videos of the experience and post it.

But I don't have $1,200 laying around. Apparently, you do. I'm genuinely interested in how this works out for you, so do me a favor and purchase the thing. You're willing to make a bet, so it seems to be like you honestly believe this will work. If this is true, then you're going to make your money back. So purchase it.


Whenever I go back I fly, but thanks for the offer to help install it.

I'm anticipating at least 25% increase in economy, based on my research, which should pay for itself in a few months based on how much I am driving with a 20+ mile 1-way commute to the new office we just moved to; not to mention that I get a tax credit for buying it.

I'll probably start this the 1st or second weekend of June, and will provide video and photos of the entire process. I may even start my own blog just for fun.

Link Posted: 5/21/2008 12:59:59 PM EDT

Quoted:
Except when you get rear-ended you car will kaboom worse than Glock with hand loads.


Is this typical of the GD?
It's obvious this guy has not read anything about the product.
Link Posted: 5/21/2008 2:18:15 PM EDT

Quoted:

Quoted:
Except when you get rear-ended you car will kaboom worse than Glock with hand loads.


Is this typical of the GD?
It's obvious this guy has not read anything about the product.


He might have a serious misunderstanding about the product, but on the other hand, don't believe everything you read about it either.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 5:26:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 6:51:58 AM EDT

Quoted:
It's obvious there's a market gap to fill.

I think I have some Radio Shack chassis, switches, and a few blinkinlights in the garage that would be perfect for a prototype efficiency improvement device.  It will improve my efficiency at gathering money from suckers.  I'm guessing I can get a 11.37% improvement average across all users.

I'll follow that with solar powered electric motors with snazzy looking swept fan blades to strap on your cars to serve as boosters.  We won't talk about whether the added drag is greater than the thrust, at worst they will be vortexilatorvirtualfairings that will reduce overall drag.



That's pretty sad, really, considering that in a few years you will probably be installing one and then say "I've always known this was going to be the way."

I just got off the phone with DJ, with the Diversified Energy Group.
He siad one of the principles of the company, a primary investor, was the BIGGEST skeptic they have come across yet, and his fuel efficiency increase was from 7mpg to 14mpg.

This doesn't bend any rules of thermal dynamics, it helps them by providing a clean burn. If your engine wastes 30% of the gas it fails to burn, this unit will help that.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 7:05:56 AM EDT

Quoted:
This doesn't bend any rules of thermal dynamics, it helps them by providing a clean burn. If your engine wastes 30% of the gas it fails to burn, this unit will help that.


If your engine is actually letting 30% of the air fuel mixture escape unburned, something is terribly wrong and the catalytic converter will be shot in short order.

I have no idea where the company is getting this stuff. They're quite simply wrong. I don't know what else to say.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 7:11:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 7:37:08 AM EDT
AeroE, don't you think the proper way to ridicule me here would be to put your money where your mouth is? I learned LONG ago the best way to shut someone up was to have them put some skin in the game.

Put up some money, and have fun with me until the results are in, or at least understand your refusal to make a bet will look like you harbor doubts, and as such make your argument so much less effective.

Start a betting pool with odds, have people chip in... we can have a PayPal account and do it in a fair and honest way.

I'm willing to play along nicely if someone wants to bet me?

Can we find out if a bet is in violation of the CoC?


Link Posted: 5/22/2008 8:59:43 AM EDT

Quoted:
AeroE, don't you think the proper way to ridicule me here would be to put your money where your mouth is? I learned LONG ago the best way to shut someone up was to have them put some skin in the game.

Put up some money, and have fun with me until the results are in, or at least understand your refusal to make a bet will look like you harbor doubts, and as such make your argument so much less effective.

Start a betting pool with odds, have people chip in... we can have a PayPal account and do it in a fair and honest way.

I'm willing to play along nicely if someone wants to bet me?

Can we find out if a bet is in violation of the CoC?




Like he said, there are too many variables and not enough controls, atleast not that he can be witness to. Instead of making some dumb internet bet, if you are so confident in it just go ahead and buy one, have it installed and get the last laugh while the rest of sit here paying for unburned fuel.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 9:03:03 AM EDT

Quoted:
i was thinking this thread was going this direction.........
i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh85/Dionatron/Sticky_Icky_2.jpg


i think that's the kind of thinking that got this thread started.
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 9:10:33 AM EDT

Quoted:
If your engine wastes 30% of the gas it fails to burn...


If your engine wastes 30% of the gas it fails to burn, you will smell it STRONGLY at the tail pipe.  I wouldn't be surprised if the exhaust would burn.

Any car like that has a SERIOUS mechanical issue, like 2 out of 6 spark plugs not firing or something...
Link Posted: 5/22/2008 9:10:44 AM EDT
There is a mechanic here in San Antonio that at one time, was well-respected who will be selling these things installed in 5 months!  Why not now?  Because he cannot get any?

Supposedly he has one installed on a vehicle that he CLAIMS has doubled the mileage.  Yet there has not been ONE SUBSTANTIATED TEST BY AN INDEPENDENT LAB.  And there are 3 such labs here in San Antonio, one of them being THE Southwest Research Institute (which among countless accolades, was the primary investigator in the failure analysis of the Space Shuttle Columbia).

Hydrogen is a PISS POOR FUEL for spark ignition engines as its octane index is around 50.  
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top