By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Well, I'm positive it doesn't work, does that count? I'm not about to "tinker" with my 30K vehicle to try out technology for which people cannot provide the theoretical science, and which the car companies (desperate for higher MPG) have rejected for use. This concept is not new, just rehashed.
Note to self: definition of 'cyber-bully': one who points out glaring factual errors.
He said the 1985 van, among the junk cars donated by the community, no longer has a fully functioning odometer, but estimates the increase in fuel efficiency to be roughly 30 percent.
Yea, there's a rock-solid fact that ends the arguement :P
The Alternate Route chimes in as well... Have I Got A Deal For You!
Some of my favorite crazy ideas are the devices that twist the air going into your enigine, and the fuel line magnets that do something to align molecules and are supposed to give a 27% increase in mileage.
So yes, the conspiracy is SO big that it's shot down pretty much everything that's come its way. It's called the light of day and it exposes scams all the time.
One of our members posted a great story about the late sixties and the "turn your air cleaner upside down to increase airflow" fad:
This was in the late sixties when self proclaimed "experts" were turning their air cleaner covers up side down to "increase air flow". Some of us at the school did an experiment (U S Navy fleet training - mechanics, Davisville Rhode Island). We asked ten of our students if they would participate, and not look under their hoods. We had them fill their tanks every Monday and Thursday. We checked their oil that day, and either installed the covers correctly or turned over. They were told to drive normally, and report the amount of fuel, and miles on the car at each fill up. Without exception, the times when the cover was upside down for "more air" the fuel economy went down.
The reasons most likely were:
1. The carbuerators were less efficient when the air heating system did not work.
2. The engines required more throttle to produce the same power when not fully warmed up but after choke opened.
3. Some restriction was required to insure proper mixture with the carbuerator.
I now tend to be very skeptical about claims for air filter devices. The manufacturers can reduce restriction if there is enough to matter, by simply increasing the size of the flter element. The only possible time there could be a problem IMO is wide open throttle.
I suppose the true believer comeback to that story would be, "Well they didn't do it right because I KNOW it works" :P
so yeah, WOT is the only place where less air restriction could matter very much, and with "drop in" type filters, it doesn't amount to squat.
With an aggressive cold air intake system + special air filter, I could see extra HP, but here again, I think the dyno would show this HP increase mostly at WOT and benefitting larger displacement engines over tiny ones.
Skepticism is a good thing---it's the "proof" that tests an idea. A skeptic CAN have his mind changed, that's the whole idea, to force the claimant to be all that he can be.
Some of my personal rules for spotting a Dubious Claim:
1. Mention of a conspiracy
2. Offer to bet millions to disprove something
3. Presentation of credentials that have nothing to do with the product (e.g., "the inventor of Gas-A-Lot is a professor of sociology at Western Fargo State Junior College").
4. Anecdotal evidence (it's interesting that people regard the term "anecdotal" as insulting, when in fact all it means in the English language is 'not having been subjected to scientific testing')
5. Claims based on "pseudo-science" or table scraps of real science, like "electro-biological" or "energy waves" or "chemical re-distribution". In other words, using terms without defining them.
6. Claiming that your opponents are fools, [non-permissible content removed] or merely spoilers of some sort.
7. Claims using all CAPITAL LETTERS. :P
4b. Presentation of false evidence from a credible source: "Caltech/MIT/whoever has published papers supporting this" and you go check the source, and it's actually not related.
I'd also add this:
8. "The EPA/DOE/FTC/Ford/etc. is testing our device right now." Unless they can point me to the supposed tester's press release (not theirs), I write it off.
Yes, the citation to a famous institution is one worth checking up on---you go to MIT and you find that the citation is indeed about "hydrogen" and about ICEs but has nothing to do with the device in question.
Something like MIT doing an experiment on how light affects the eating habits of mice and then you cite that as proof for "Shiftrights Magna-Ray LightBulb Diet Device".
Peter Lindemann Lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HjIyxEvAYM
Another Lecture http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp7hMUXjmI&feature=related
Of course, if you really want to know about this covicted fraudster, just read this:MeyerBio
(from Wikipedia)
n 1996, inventor Stanley Meyer was sued by two investors to whom he had sold dealerships, offering the right to do business in Water Fuel Cell technology. His car was due to be examined by the expert witness Michael Laughton, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Queen Mary, University of London and Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering. However, Meyer made what Professor Laughton considered a "lame excuse" on the days of examination and did not allow the test to proceed.[3] According to Meyer the technology was patent pending and under investigation by the patent office, the Department of Energy and the military.[14] His "water fuel cell" was later examined by three witnesses in court who found that there "was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and that it was simply using conventional electrolysis". The court found Meyer guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered him to repay the two investors their $25,000.[3]
And later on......
Stanley Meyer died suddenly on 21 March 1998 after sipping from his drink while dining at a restaurant. An autopsy report by the Franklin County, Ohio coroner concluded that Meyer had died of a cerebral aneurysm, but conspiracy theorists insist that he was poisoned to suppress the technology, and that oil companies and the United States government were involved in his death.
You want 12,000 volts out of a tin can and a rubber band?
Here you go:
Shiftright Technologies (Silicon Valley, California) Gas-Saving "Magna-Spark Ignition Booster"
How can you doubt me? I shave with it everyday.
No, that is not blood on my face, it's catsup!
First off, because hydrogen is the simplest element, it will leak from any container, no mater how strong and no matter how well insulated. For this reason, hydrogen in storage tanks will always evaporate, at a rate of at least 1.7 percent per day.29 Hydrogen is very reactive. When hydrogen gas comes into contact with metal surfaces it decomposes into hydrogen atoms, which are so very small that they can penetrate metal. This causes structural changes that make the metal brittle.
Perhaps the largest problem for hydrogen fuel cell transportation is the size of the fuel tanks. In gaseous form, a volume of 238,000 litres of hydrogen gas is necessary to replace the energy capacity of 20 gallons of gasoline
He goes on to say that you can of course compress the hydrogen, but in that case, he states:
Because of its low density, compressed hydrogen will not give a car as useful a range as gasoline
Then of course it can be liquified, but in THAT case:
If the hydrogen is liquefied, this will give it a density of 0.07 grams per cubic centimeter. At this density, it will require four times the volume of gasoline for a given amount of energy. Thus, a 15-gallon gas tank would equate to a 60-gallon tank of liquefied hydrogen. Beyond this, there are the difficulties of storing liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen is cold enough to freeze air. In test vehicles, accidents have occurred from pressure build-ups resulting from plugged valves
IFMr. Pfeiffer's statistics are indeed correct, the HHO kits we see on eBay are hogwash and hydrogen as an automotive fuel is still a tricky, very high tech operation requiring a big bankroll and very sophisticated equipment.
Sounds like a lot of that happens. One MORE thing to consider - burn a gallon of gasoline, and you make about a gallon of water, and that only represents a part of the energy released by the gasoline. So the energy contained in that pint Mason jar of water-converted-to-hydrogen is VERY small, compared to a tank of gas.
WHAT a coincidence! :P
Actually it's been fun reading up on all this HHO stuff.
Silly me... just give it time!
A lot of the former - when challenged some become irate, start quoting stuff only a saleman would know. The rest must combine the placebo effect with radical changes in driving habits (I can change my mpgs 30% by how hard I drive, for example), plus the need to think they spent their money wisely, rather than flushing it down the drain...
And I'm sure if they even respond, they'd tell you: "Well, you didn't build it properly".
Great scam, actually, to sell a "kit" rather than a product. You can NEVER be liable for failure! (well you CAN, but you think you can't).
Oh right... I see... I NEED the disgronificator THEN it will all work as planned :P
Of course! And there's the other one: "Well, you haven't run it long enough, it has to clean all that bad "stuff" (whatever that is...) out of your system first!"
"While we haven't actually tried out a hydrogen injection system ourselves, Popular Mechanics has. Mike Allen at PM installed a hydrogen generating and injection system in a test vehicle and used a data logging system to record the fuel flow. The hydrogen system had a switch to enable and disable the system. By monitoring the fuel injection pulses, the most direct measure of how much fuel was being delivered to the engine, he found absolutely no change in fuel consumption. The one change Allen did see was a drop of a couple of tenths of a volt in the vehicle system voltage when the electrolyzer was turned on indicating the load it was putting on the electrical system."
Read The Entire Test Procedure
And here's the kicker from Allen's commentary:
"I spent a good hour on the phone yesterday with Fran Giroux of hydrogen-boost.com. He tells me that the HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes. The fuel savings doesn't come from the energy contained in the hydrogen as it's burned"
Say WHAT?!!!
Ya gotta love it! And those other 'devices and changes' include some really old snake oil, 'fuel catalysts', magnets, that kind of nonsense. A scammer's dream! :sick: :lemon:
Giroux sells a system of modifications that disables the engine management's computer and makes the engine run extremely lean—as lean as 20:1.
If that's the case, then his modifications are probably, in fact, in reality, improving the MPG independent of the HHO generator he is selling,
AND
are tampering with Federally-mandated emissions systems and controls.
So for $85 bucks you get something that doesn't work, (by his own admission!!) forcing you to buy other things that may or may not work, (by tampering with computer controls) and may even harm your engine, AND pretty much guaranteeing that you will never pass another smog test again. 20:1 fuel mixture? Oh, yeah, the smog machine is gonna love that.
Sweet. Such a deal.
Yikes! Let's burn a few valves or pistons while we're at it! Another had an add-on 'computer' that consisted of a couple of resistors in a plastic box. Priceless!
Maybe we should have a pool for what the next "miracle" will be. We've had magnets and pills and tornadic fuel mixers.
Maybe some kind of silicon spray that you just aim up your tailpipe to ease the flow of exhaust gases? :P
The power of belief drives entire INDUSTRIES, entire networks of "alternative medical procedures", etc., many of which pale in the light of factual data----but people are not abandoning them.
do some research, you'll spend less money if u do everything yourself. and save money if...... your not a retard.
Thanks for your valuable insights. :lemon: