water 4 gas anyone look in to this.

[steveoutdoorrec]

For those that want to read more and see an actual How To Build It Yourself set of instructions go here

I've read a lot here and other places about how this is impossible but not one person has built and tested one and reported back. I have talked to a number of people that have build this unit and they claim an increase in mileage.

I have been planning on building one to test it out but life got in the way and sucked up my available playing with stuff money for now.

Oh and as much as I love the Mythbusters they do cut corners on some of their processes so not all they say are busted are truly busted.

On this one they did try to totally run a car on a similar system and as many have said here that is impossible because of the inefficiency of internal combustion engines. But if they had built it and just had the Brown's Gas flowing into the air intake would the mpg have increased or not?

 

[BobRip]

This is just a thought.

On the news for many years it has been discussed by scientists that all we need is to find Ice, or water on other planets to survive. In other words hydrogen can be extracted and used for heat, and fuel to drive engines.

If it is possible to support life on another planet why can't we use it here

We need the ice/water for normal water purposes (cleaning, drinking, growing plants, etc). We can make hydrogen fuel from the water, but you would need outside energy to do this. Solar or nuclear would be my best guess. Without water on a planet you would have to transport very large quantities of material from Earth. That's why they say it is so important.

 

[Redneck in training]

It is possible that it actually works due to the fact that it increases efficiency of the engine. Typical gasoline engine has about 30% efficiency so 3% increase would lower fuel consumption by 10%. My thinking is that because the gas contains oxygen and hydrogen the "pumping" losses in the suction tract of the engine could decrease. Due to higher concentration of oxygen and the fact that hydrogen is very light gas the necessary amount of oxygen plus fuel could be delivered to the engine at lower mass flow (Less mass flow means less power to fill the engine is required) of air plus brown gas. Also because hydrogen flows readily at smaller pressure differential it might increase the efficiency of filling of the cylinder during intake cycle.

 

[Jackpine Madman]

Ahh.. the free lunch!

soundguy

Not at all a free lunch. If you read what I wrote above, you will see that thee system in no way violates the second law of thermodynamics. The gain in available energy does not come from simply burning H2, but from the effect of the H2 in breaking down the hydrocarbon chains of the gasoline, thus permitting them to burn more efficiently. The process is similar to catalysis, but is not catalysis since the "catalyzing" agent (i.e. the H2) is consumed in the process. It only takes a little H2 to do this.

All of the critics are "mythbusting" this system based on a misunderstanding of the system, kind of like when Kelvin said the earth could not be more than a million yearsold because all the hydrogen in the sun would have burned by now. He was assuming a chemical process, and the actual process was thermonuclear. Likewise here, the critics are assuming that the process is some sort of goofy perpetual-motion scheme that consists of using energy to liberate H2 and then trying to regain the energy by burning the H2.

 

[BrentD]

Not at all a free lunch. If you read what I wrote above, you will see that thee system in no way violates the second law of thermodynamics. The gain in available energy does not come from simply burning H2, but from the effect of the H2 in breaking down the hydrocarbon chains of the gasoline, thus permitting them to burn more efficiently. The process is similar to catalysis, but is not catalysis since the "catalyzing" agent (i.e. the H2) is consumed in the process. It only takes a little H2 to do this.

All of the critics are "mythbusting" this system based on a misunderstanding of the system, kind of like when Kelvin said the earth could not be more than a million yearsold because all the hydrogen in the sun would have burned by now. He was assuming a chemical process, and the actual process was thermonuclear. Likewise here, the critics are assuming that the process is some sort of goofy perpetual-motion scheme that consists of using energy to liberate H2 and then trying to regain the energy by burning the H2.

The only problem with this is that Hydrogen doesn't react with the hydrocarbons in gasoline. What you are describing is indeed the action of a catalyst. A catalyst always plays a part in a chemical reaction. It is usually an intermediary that will pick an atom or a group of atoms off a molecule of one substance and holds on to it there while the molecule it stole the atoms from then reacts with another substance to become a third chemical that then reacts with the molecule formed by the catalyst and the "stolen" atoms. That reaction can either simply grab the original atoms back and reposition them on the molecule thus freeing up the catalyst molecule to act again, or it can exchange some more atoms with the catalyst thus transforming the catalyst into another substance that will no longer participate in the chemical reaction.

Anybody remember those magnets that you ziptied to your fuel line just before the injectors? Those were meant to "break the hydrocarbon chains" as well. I've tested one of those personally and can say 100% that it doesn't work.

Unfortunately, I've found that a lot of the "brown's gas" "true believers" treat the concept like some sort of bizarre religion. Anybody that tries to disprove it is met with "You just don't understand process X".

Granted, I personally have a lot of faith in a lot of things that are not yet accepted by modern science, Heim Theory and Polywell Fusion being the two most prominent ones. I will be the first to stand up and declare that there are processes out there that current science can't explain but this is not one of them. You have to follow Occam's Razor. The simplest solution is usually (but not always) the correct one. In this situation, is it simpler to conclude that any mileage gains that are being achieved are the result of leaning out the engine, or that they are the result of some unknown chemical process that can't be reproduced in a lab but can be reproduced by any average joe with a few simple parts and a roll of duct tape?

You want to prove that the Hydrogen breaks the hydrocarbon chains, then take a fuel injector, couple it to a compression cylinder, inject some gas vapor, compress and then run the gas through a spectrum chromatograph to quantify the individual molecules. The repeat the same experiment, but this time inject some pure oxygen and hydrogen into the cylinder before compressing and run the result through the spectrum chromatograph and see if the results are different than the first run (excluding the individual hydrogen and oxygen molecules that will show up.)

 

[Redneck in training]

Not at all a free lunch. If you read what I wrote above, you will see that thee system in no way violates the second law of thermodynamics. The gain in available energy does not come from simply burning H2, but from the effect of the H2 in breaking down the hydrocarbon chains of the gasoline, thus permitting them to burn more efficiently. The process is similar to catalysis, but is not catalysis since the "catalyzing" agent (i.e. the H2) is consumed in the process. It only takes a little H2 to do this.

All of the critics are "mythbusting" this system based on a misunderstanding of the system, kind of like when Kelvin said the earth could not be more than a million yearsold because all the hydrogen in the sun would have burned by now. He was assuming a chemical process, and the actual process was thermonuclear. Likewise here, the critics are assuming that the process is some sort of goofy perpetual-motion scheme that consists of using energy to liberate H2 and then trying to regain the energy by burning the H2.

The fact is that the fuel in modern engine is burned very efficiently to begin with. To make the fuel burn more efficient will not yield much gain. The inefficiency of the engine lies in the fact that some of the heat energy is rejected by the cooling system, some leaves the engine as hot exhaust gas at high velocity, some of the energy is used to suck the air into the engine etc. If we would have materials that can handle the temperatures of the engine without cooling or turbines in the exhaust coupled with the crankshaft etc we could have more efficient engines.

 

[BobRip]

The fact is that the fuel in modern engine is burned very efficiently to begin with. To make the fuel burn more efficient will not yield much gain. The inefficiency of the engine lies in the fact that some of the heat energy is rejected by the cooling system, some leaves the engine as hot exhaust gas at high velocity, some of the energy is used to suck the air into the engine etc. If we would have materials that can handle the temperatures of the engine without cooling or turbines in the exhaust coupled with the crankshaft etc we could have more efficient engines.

Redneck, good points. In addition by leaning out the engine you create more nitrous oxides which violates federal laws. Please remember that automobile manufactures have to meet many requirements and there are trade offs between pollution and fuel economy.

 

[rdbrumfield]

Any of you remember water injection. In small amounts in gas engines it creates power. This was done way back and yes, it does work. That little bit of steam does create lugging power.

 

[Soundguy]

completely different concept of water injection and what it does..

soundguy

 

[Egon]

That little bit of steam does create lugging power.

Back when the main object was to reduce cylinder head temperatures when high boost was used.