why all "water car/hydrogen generators" are scams

[baddad457]

Originally Posted by MAKG

An electronics instructor that doesn't know you need AIR to burn hydrogen?."

OK Genius. Did you ever stop to think about what the two components of water are? You don't need air to burn hydrogen, you need oxygen. Where did the oxygen go that was combined with the hydrogen before they were separated? Did it just vanish into thin air? Or is there a tube that draws it off separately from the hydrogen?

[MAKG]

Originally Posted by baddad457

OK Genius. Did you ever stop to think about what the two components of water are? You don't need air to burn hydrogen, you need oxygen. Where did the oxygen go that was combined with the hydrogen before they were separated? Did it just vanish into thin air? Or is there a tube that draws it off separately from the hydrogen?

So you're saying the point of this "HHO" crap is an oxygen generator?

You get only enough oxygen to burn the hydrogen you made (assuming no leaks). That's it. You have none left over for the gasoline with the air intake covered over.

Which means you're "idling" the engine with the equivalent of a few-hundred watt electric motor. A quick look at the (MUCH slower) starter motor will show it draws quite a lot more power than that.

A working engine will ALWAYS stall when the air inlet is covered. If it doesn't, it's not working, and the "conclusions" are KNOWN to suffer from hidden variables.

That there might be some effect on worn out COMPRESSION IGNITION engines might have something to do with compression loss and modest changes in combustion temperatures. But spark ignition engines need to be next-to-destroyed for compression loss to result in misfires, and hydrogen won't replace the burnt valves or broken piston rings.

[Bent Bolt]

Originally Posted by Jason

Can we name this whole area of TRS the "MAKG says your wrong" Forum?

Why ?? He is correct.

[Terry]

I been gone from this site for a while but I had to re-resister to ask a question on this topic. I have been looking at this thread and other places on the web. I understand what MAKG is saying about this issue but I have a question. Don't flame me but I think that I am seeing a missing point. The charging system on most cars or trucks are driven off of a belt. It turns on or off charging by a small contact area. I do not believe that contact points cause much extra load when charging a battery? If this is true than the car does not have to work harder to charge the battery to convert the water to fuel? I think that this issue alone throws the scam topic out the window?

[MAKG]

Terry, it DOES take more effort, regardless of contact size or whatever, to turn a generator with an electrical load than without one. You're cranking electrons through a circuit, and they have a harder time doing it if they have to perform work along the way. That includes yanking oxygen atoms off of lead atoms to charge a battery.

You'll have to try it. Get a hand-crank or bicycle generator, and hook loads to it. Perhaps a local science museum or school may have it set up. It makes a lot of difference; I used to wear out undergrads with three automotive headlamps (it takes about 1/4 HP for that), switched individually.

[baddad457]

Originally Posted by MAKG

So you're saying the point of this "HHO" crap is an oxygen generator?

You get only enough oxygen to burn the hydrogen you made (assuming no leaks). That's it. You have none left over for the gasoline with the air intake covered over.

Which means you're "idling" the engine with the equivalent of a few-hundred watt electric motor. A quick look at the (MUCH slower) starter motor will show it draws quite a lot more power than that.

A working engine will ALWAYS stall when the air inlet is covered. If it doesn't, it's not working, and the "conclusions" are KNOWN to suffer from hidden variables.

That there might be some effect on worn out COMPRESSION IGNITION engines might have something to do with compression loss and modest changes in combustion temperatures. But spark ignition engines need to be next-to-destroyed for compression loss to result in misfires, and hydrogen won't replace the burnt valves or broken piston rings.

Where did I say it was an oxygen generator? And placing your hand over the inlet tract seldom results in a complete seal. Plus how much oxygen does it take to burn hydrogen too? I don't know, but could there be a chance there's enough oxygen left to burn the gasoline? It takes 10 to 16 parts air to burn gasoline, but not all the air is comprised of oxygen. I do know that the introduction of pure oxygen is something you really don't want to do with an uncontrolled fire

[MAKG]

Originally Posted by baddad457

Where did I say it was an oxygen generator? And placing your hand over the inlet tract seldom results in a complete seal. Plus how much oxygen does it take to burn hydrogen too? I don't know, but could there be a chance there's enough oxygen left to burn the gasoline? It takes 10 to 16 parts air to burn gasoline, but not all the air is comprised of oxygen. I do know that the introduction of pure oxygen is something you really don't want to do with an uncontrolled fire

NO NO NO!

It takes exactly as much oxygen to burn the hydrogen as you made from the water. Maybe a little more if it leaks. This is one of many reasons why it can't possibly work. There is NO chance there is any left to burn gasoline AND all the hydrogen. If you're not burning all the hydrogen, it's a (bad) oxygen generator that displaces fuel with hydrogen. If you ARE burning the hydrogen, you didn't do anything.

And it ain't pure oxygen.

And I can make an airtight seal over a tube with my hand. You can't?

I'm thoroughly amazed at how badly one has to understand the most basic chemistry in order to think something like this might have the slightest prayer.

[DeMilled_83_4x4]

Originally Posted by MAKG

If you ARE burning the hydrogen, you didn't do anything.

Can you explain that a little more?
I thought that the hydrogen was not being burnt but rather re-combining with the oxygen to again become water.

This is not a smart a$$ question, I am truly asking for clarification on that point.

[baddad457]

[QUOTE=MAKG;203174]

It takes exactly as much oxygen to burn the hydrogen as you made from the water. Maybe a little more if it leaks. This is one of many reasons why it can't possibly work. There is NO chance there is any left to burn gasoline AND all the hydrogen. If you're not burning all the hydrogen, it's a (bad) oxygen generator that displaces fuel with hydrogen. If you ARE burning the hydrogen, you didn't do anything.

And it ain't pure oxygen.

And I can make an airtight seal over a tube with my hand. You can't?

I'm thoroughly amazed at how badly one has to understand the most basic chemistry in order to think something like this might have the slightest prayer.[quote]
Now this statement smacks of someone who's too big for his britches And tells me you've never tried any of this stuff to prove yourself wrong. It's akin to someone from the 1800's saying man will never be able to travel to the moon. If it took one part oxygen to burn two parts hydrogen, then water would be flamable. And why wouldn't the oxygen produced not be pure?

[MAKG]

Originally Posted by baddad457

Now this statement smacks of someone who's too big for his britches And tells me you've never tried any of this stuff to prove yourself wrong. It's akin to someone from the 1800's saying man will never be able to travel to the moon. If it took one part oxygen to burn two parts hydrogen, then water would be flamable. And why wouldn't the oxygen produced not be pure?

Oh jeez. This is so completely wrong, I don't know where to begin.

It DOES take one part (by number) oxygen to burn two parts hydrogen. Have you ever paid attention to any chemistry at all? By weight, it takes eight times as much oxygen as hydrogen.

And it's not pure because it wasn't kept in a pure environment. You CAN make pure oxygen by electrolysis, but as soon as you mix it with, say, air or mixture or hydrogen, it's not pure. The setups being discussed here NEVER separate the oxygen from the hydrogen. It's not pure.

It's MUCH more like folks in the 19th century saying people will never be able to teleport.

Why must I prove that all of modern and classical physics works? Because if there is no energy conservation, it doesn't, and we really can't make satellites that tell us where we are or airplanes that actually fly or spacecraft that get where they are supposed to.

The extraordinary claim is that one can make excess oxygen from nothing. One can break apart water and then put it back together and have some left over. That's what you said. Prove it.

[baddad457]

No, you prove it, you're the one telling others it doesn't work. You've obviously got a superiority complex going here. Most people I've met like yourself haven't got the common sense that God gave the rest of us. I never said I could break down water and then put it back together and have some left over. I'm questioning this stuff, all you've done so far is critisize others here using your superior intellect. History has repeatedly shown us people like yourself are the ones holding progress back. Time and time again, things have been said to be impossible to do, and time and time again, it's been done to prove them wrong.

[MAKG]

Gotta love pop history....

That "they laughed at Einstein" myth is patently false. It never happened.

Most ideas thrown out as stupid are indeed stupid. Name ONE invention made by an uneducated redneck, without the assistance of someone more educated (even Edison needed help, especially from Tesla), that experts claimed was impossible. No, the Wrights don't work. The experts thought it was so completely possible that the Smithsonian and the French government each funded competing projects.

READ what you said -- you asked if there was oxygen left over. What the F did you mean if it wasn't that there was, well, oxygen left over? And pay attention in school. And especially pay attention to your own claims.