Hello! Log in or Register   |  Help  |  Donate  |  Buy Shirts See all banner ads | Advertise on TheSamba.com  
TheSamba.com
 
HHO gas as a fuel supplement
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Jump to:
Forum Index -> Off Topic Share: Facebook Twitter
Reply to topic
Print View
Quick sort: Show newest posts on top | Show oldest posts on top View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GeorgeL
Samba Member


Joined: January 16, 2006
Posts: 7346

GeorgeL is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coW wrote:
Scientist and engineers have nothing to gain by saying it cannot be done.


True that. If I were to make a breakthrough like those advertised I'd love to put on my tux and head for Stockholm. A reproducible violation of the first law of thermodynamics would put the physics medal around my neck for sure!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
clearsurf2001
Samba Vaccinator


Joined: February 26, 2004
Posts: 1671
Location: Dave-AKA-fortyeye-Oceanside, Ca
clearsurf2001 is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spezialist wrote:
http://www.umpquaenergy.com/

the power-stroke for diesel is radically different than a gas engine, thereby making this a win win situation, that said it is a proven technology that works in diesels, no shit.


From the website:

Percent reduction (emissions)
UP TO 100% - Carbon Monoxide
UP TO 100% - Hydrocarbons

I won't even question their other claims. These numbers have been documented? They've managed to change the very foundation of combustion? At least their website is arranged nicely, and being from Oregon, they sound like they have the inside track on this "technology".

Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.
Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.
Image may have been reduced in size. Click image to view fullscreen.

_________________
Get ready for the injection Smile
EverettB wrote:
Make sure it is coherent. Rodney
mharney wrote:

I think Glenn has an EMPI crank in his engine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
GeorgeL
Samba Member


Joined: January 16, 2006
Posts: 7346

GeorgeL is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

clearsurf2001 wrote:
Spezialist wrote:
http://www.umpquaenergy.com/

the power-stroke for diesel is radically different than a gas engine, thereby making this a win win situation, that said it is a proven technology that works in diesels, no shit.


From the website:

Percent reduction (emissions)
UP TO 100% - Carbon Monoxide
UP TO 100% - Hydrocarbons

I won't even question their other claims. These numbers have been documented? They've managed to change the very foundation of combustion? At least their website is arranged nicely, and being from Oregon, they sound like they have the inside track on this "technology".


Heck, go down to the bottom of the page and find another product that puts metal back on worn surfaces in exactly the right places.

How do it know?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Spezialist
Banned


Joined: July 01, 2005
Posts: 1941

Spezialist is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Put another way, the petroleum I.C.E. {internal combustion engine} industry never followed the first law of thermodynamics, did that ever stop us?
_________________
Popcorn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
GeorgeL
Samba Member


Joined: January 16, 2006
Posts: 7346

GeorgeL is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spezialist wrote:

anyway as I said, for the rebuttals to have any salt.
they have first trump Einstein E=MC2,


Why? the law of mass-energy equivalence doesn't contradict the laws of conservation of mass or energy. All it does is recognize that the quantity of mass and energy is a constant.

Now, if you're claiming a new form of matter-energy conversion I'd love to be a co-author on your paper, if you can convince me (as well as the peer-review process) that your method is valid. I hear that Stockholm is very pretty in December.

Spezialist wrote:
then they have trump the addition of nitrous oxide to engines.


You're forgetting one little thing. Something other than nitrous oxide has to be added to make that extra power. If you don't inject extra fuel the oxygen provided by nitrous oxide will burn the engine's own metal!

The nitrous oxide disassociates (absorbing some energy to do so) and then the free oxygen combines with the extra fuel (making more energy than the disassociation). No free lunch, though, since you have to buy the extra fuel and nitrous oxide.

Spezialist wrote:
>solar powered HHO generators on big rigs is another option<


In the previous post where I analyzed the HHO generator you cited I didn't even worry about where the power for the HHO generator came from, because the generator was obviously ineffective even if the power is free.

Now if you had a 300kW solar array you might make enough HHO to power a small car. It'd be three times more efficient to just drive electric motors directly with the electricity, though. 300kW of solar panels would be a bit cumbersome to tow around! Smile

Oh, and mechanical engineers, who infest the ICE industry, are pretty well versed in the laws of thermodynamics. They know that they cannot be ignored.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Jimmy111
Samba Member


Joined: October 05, 2006
Posts: 2643
Location: Wyoming
Jimmy111 is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm. I missed this one... How did it get to 9 pages? I took the time and read most of it.
I got to admit it had some interesting fact as well as fiction. But.. Dont waste your time or your money guys on this fantasy.

But if some of you bus or SC guys are interested, I WILL show you how to run your bus for free. It will cost you about $1000 or so depending on your mechanical skills and take up a little room in your bus but it does work. Wont work in a bug ... sorry too big. There isnt enough room in a bug for anything besides passengers... I ran a system like this on a chevy pickup for over a year and bought no fuel at all. Works great. just doesent accelerate really fast.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
Spezialist
Banned


Joined: July 01, 2005
Posts: 1941

Spezialist is offline 

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GeorgeL wrote:
Spezialist wrote:

anyway as I said, for the rebuttals to have any salt.
they have first trump Einstein E=MC2,


Why? the law of mass-energy equivalence doesn't contradict the laws of conservation of mass or energy. All it does is recognize that the quantity of mass and energy is a constant.

Now, if you're claiming a new form of matter-energy conversion I'd love to be a co-author on your paper, if you can convince me (as well as the peer-review process) that your method is valid. I hear that Stockholm is very pretty in December.

Spezialist wrote:
then they have trump the addition of nitrous oxide to engines.


You're forgetting one little thing. Something other than nitrous oxide has to be added to make that extra power. If you don't inject extra fuel the oxygen provided by nitrous oxide will burn the engine's own metal!

The nitrous oxide disassociates (absorbing some energy to do so) and then the free oxygen combines with the extra fuel (making more energy than the disassociation). No free lunch, though, since you have to buy the extra fuel and nitrous oxide.

Spezialist wrote:
>solar powered HHO generators on big rigs is another option<


In the previous post where I analyzed the HHO generator you cited I didn't even worry about where the power for the HHO generator came from, because the generator was obviously ineffective even if the power is free.

Now if you had a 300kW solar array you might make enough HHO to power a small car. It'd be three times more efficient to just drive electric motors directly with the electricity, though. 300kW of solar panels would be a bit cumbersome to tow around! Smile

Oh, and mechanical engineers, who infest the ICE industry, are pretty well versed in the laws of thermodynamics. They know that they cannot be ignored.


>INDUSTRY<


For all others,,
we take for granted the quantified energy of the whole industry to produce one gallon of gas from 2 gallons of CRUDE, much less so the energy required to search and actually find the stuff, transport, store, and dispose of the waste, to be expressly clear and concise, since it appears that is overly necessary.
who drank the koolaide?

What many naysayers seem to forget is that petroleum is just a carrier of energy as is anything else, just a difference in probabilities.
_________________
Popcorn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
EverettB Premium Member
Administrator


Joined: April 11, 2000
Posts: 69734
Location: Phoenix Metro
EverettB is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please stay on topic or I will lock this thread (again).

If you posted something related to HHO and it was removed, feel free to post it again. Make sure it is coherent.
_________________
How to Post Photos
Everett Barnes - [email protected] | My wanted ads
"Water is the only drink for a wise man" | "Communication prevents complaints"
Stop dead photo links! Post your photos to The Samba Gallery!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website Facebook Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Spezialist
Banned


Joined: July 01, 2005
Posts: 1941

Spezialist is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thought provoking FACTs for the HHO crowd..

(1)Inertia / momentum is what compensates for any perceived loss from generating HHO from your alternator. Negating ANY perceived violations of thermodynamic laws in relation to closed systems, since this is an open system in the first place. In which case it is impossible for it{I.C.E.} to violate any of these laws, anymore than it{I.C.E.} does already, duh?
If the {I.C.E.} engine didn't violate the conservation of energy laws we all would still have plenty of cheap petroleum and we never have to fill the tank, because we never actually use the the energy source, duh?

(2)HHO, IE: browns gas, while being split from H2O will naturally pressurise the container infinitely until a steady state is achieved.
Imagine if you will, what you are doing is creating a form of steam pressure in making this gas.
Building your container to withstand a prescribed pressure would be optimum, more Gas, less petrol, get it?
Furthering this train of thought, build your electrolyzer to withstand combustion pressures and you dont have to worry about blow-back.
PVC pipe schedule 120 has a Pressure rating (380 psi to 1010 psi) which varies with pipe size and temperatures.
A pop valve would be ideal, to accommodate any explosions.
A note on explosions, you will only burn what you have produced
A pop valve would be a simple device that you add to your system that would release energy in an explosion and as simple as a smaller schedule pipe fitting that will blow off in a misfire.
I've seen PCV valves used also, more as a flame arrestor, I would use both.
_________________
Popcorn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
GeorgeL
Samba Member


Joined: January 16, 2006
Posts: 7346

GeorgeL is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Didn't EB say something about keeping it coherent?

And no, don't try the "you just don't understand" bit with me, since I am capable of finding meaning in the writing of high school students. Your discourse is pure gibberish.

Whether a system is open or closed makes no difference as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.

BTW, the main problem with HHO generators isn't with conservation of energy, it's with the second law of thermodynamics. Even if you produce HHO with perfect efficiency, you're only going to get the thermodynamic efficiency of the IC engine when you burn it, resulting in the loss of about 70% of the energy used to make the HHO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
GeorgeL
Samba Member


Joined: January 16, 2006
Posts: 7346

GeorgeL is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I'm about as far from an industry insider as you can get. A big part of what I do is teaching high school student to skeptically evaluate concepts like HHO generators. Most of them are laughably absurd, but cloaked in enough hardware to make them look impressive.

I still get a chuckle out of this one, the self-generating electric car. Note that it not only has the wind-driven fans, but it also has generators working off of the rear wheels!


Link


I think that this guy actually believes that his ideas work!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Spezialist
Banned


Joined: July 01, 2005
Posts: 1941

Spezialist is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

unknown mechanics wrote:
I will try to explain what these guys with the electrolyzers are attempting to do. They are not trying to run their cars or trucks on the hydrogen. They are using the HHO gas as an accelerant. The vapor that comes off the small droplets of gasoline burns at about 4,000 feet per second. Hydrogen in air burns at about 38,000 feet per second. When you do the math, you will see that an engine running at 2000 rpm does not have enough time to completely burn the fuel (the power stroke is only one of the four strokes per rpm). The thought is if you can catch all the fuel on fire at once, rather than waiting for the flame to make its way down from the spark plug and through the gas, you will get a more efficient burn. I hope this sheds some light on what these guys are trying to do.



Seemed like a good place to start, and this guy seems to explain the theory as well as anyone I've seen.

Ok, a bit of history. I'm a 21 year ASE Master auto tech with an L1 advanced drivability certification. I own a repair shop in NE Georgia. Lately I have been bombarded by people wanting to know if this works, to the point where I started to do research on it. I've seen mason jars with wire , I've seen acrylic cells that look like car batteries, and most lately I saw a cylinder made of PVC pipe that has stainless electrodes in it. This seems to be the most durable and easiest to install design so far. Better yet, the guy who made it has installed it on his car, a 2000 Dodge Durango 4wd with a 5.9L V-8. He claims it went from 13mpg to 22mpg. I'm a bit of a sceptic myself, so I plugged in a scan tool to the car and checked out some parameters. This is what I found.

With the cell disconnected I found the injector on time to be about 6msec. The oxygen sensor was running in the middle of the scale, cycling normally. A few quick stabs on the throttle to load up the exhaust showed a peak oxygen sensor voltage of 1.00 volt, which means it is capable of reading a full rich condition. Short term fuel trim numbers were normal, floating around zero plus or minus a couple of percent. Long term fuel trims were unusually negative.

With the cell turned on and running at normal temperature (130F by my infrared thermometer), Oxygen sensor readings were running about normal, long term fuel trims were unusually negative, short term fuel trims were hovering about 33% negative, and injector on time was running at just a touch over 4msec.

All indications are that this engine really was running on about 50% less gasoline, which is consistant with what he was reporting in gas mileage. I had him build me a cell and installed it on a 1993 Dodge Minivan yesterday for testing. If it works, I'll have some real numbers to report along with more technical data than the "Run Your Car on Water" sites provide. If it doesn't, none of my customers will spend any money on this and the guy who built the cell (a 65 year old cabinet maker and long time area resident) will be well known for his efforts to defruad people. And I should know within about a week.

Here is what I can tell you so far. Installation was easy, it took about 1 1/2 hours. I ran a relay and fuse for the cell, triggering it off the fuel pump to make sure the cell would only be active when the engine was running. The gas is plumbed in to the manifold thru a single manifold vacuum line (there are other more complex setups, but I wanted to start basic). The cell is running on alternator voltage, running between 12.6 and 14.7 volts, typicly right at 13.7. After the cell warms up, (about 130 degrees F) it is drawing 12.3 amps. I mixed 1 tablespoon of baking soda in to one gallon of distilled water so I would have a consistant "fuel" source for testing purposes. The cell holds 16 ounces full.

From driving it so far, I can tell you that there are no adverse drivability symptoms, if anything the car seems to have a bit better throttle response. Knowing I would be installing this system for testing, I checked the mileage last week, travelling 165 miles on 7.5 gallons of gas. Ok, it was 7.48 gallons to be precise, but I won't be driving the van in a lab. That came out to 22 mpg. I'll drive it for a week to get a couple hundred miles on it before I recalculate, and see how much water it uses. If it works we'll get in to doing some tuning. Finally, this question will be answered once and for all. Honestly, I hope it does work. I service several fleets of vehicles who would love to see this kind of savings, and I could make a couple of bucks installing them. If I was able to save people that kind of money I have no doubt my client list would grow rather quickly. If it doesn't work, at least none of them will get suckered, and I'm out some time and a few dollars in supplies. Either way, I'll win. People who ask me about it are either going to save money at the pump or on the internet

_________________
Popcorn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Ian
Samba Moderator


Joined: August 28, 2002
Posts: 4930
Location: 713
Ian is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lots of long winded posts on the internet...you need more pictures!!


Link


What are the nay-sayers saying about this? As all VW folk we can easily tell that this is a VW powered sandrail.

His patents are here: http://www.google.com/patents?q=%22stanley+a.+meyer%22&lr=&sa=N&start=0

As far as I could read anywhere, he could build it but couldn't explain what he was doing to the molecules. He was supposedly poisoned (don't eat out!!) and his car was taken as part of the investigation into his death. My friend said "so they killed him and took his sh*t? convenient"

Why can't it be replicated?? When I have some more time I will try to build what is outlined in the patents. I would love to work with anyone that has facilities to replicate this stuff.
_________________
All your Buses are belong to us.
Love and good roads!
IN LOVING MEMORY OF ROB CRESS 1968-2012
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Facebook Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Ian
Samba Moderator


Joined: August 28, 2002
Posts: 4930
Location: 713
Ian is offline 

PostPosted: Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yellow Rabbit wrote:
It takes energy to separate Hydrogen from water. There is no net gain.


But there is a conversion of power from electrical to mechanical. Right?

Energy can't be created or destroyed right? So technically there is never a "net gain"?

I'm asking.
_________________
All your Buses are belong to us.
Love and good roads!
IN LOVING MEMORY OF ROB CRESS 1968-2012
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Facebook Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
SuperSamba Premium Member
Samba False Idol


Joined: June 03, 2000
Posts: 1535
Location: The Interwebs
SuperSamba is offline 

PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cleaned up again.

Please post only messages related to the topic.

Do not post messages that consist only of insults. If you disagree with someone, post information to back it up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Facebook Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Spezialist
Banned


Joined: July 01, 2005
Posts: 1941

Spezialist is offline 

PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian wrote:
Yellow Rabbit wrote:
It takes energy to separate Hydrogen from water. There is no net gain.


But there is a conversion of power from electrical to mechanical. Right?

Energy can't be created or destroyed right? So technically there is never a "net gain"?

I'm asking.


Technically, it is always equal, but you dont always get it in work since heat is considered energy "wasted"

FWIW, I had an hho salesperson call me about getting me to be a local rep for an hho product, she had customers waiting, one even called me, I told her it was a scam, the technology has not been proven yet. < me being honest to a fault.
I called back the salesperson and told her the same thing, she defended herself, with the caveat, the customer is responsible for knowing what they are buying Evil or Very Mad
Third party water for fuel scam < google that.
Anyway, I told her to comp me one so I could know what I was representing,,huh, we cant afford that!
I was really pissed because in our first conversation she did not inform me that she was selling anything at all, "she knew of a source"
_________________
Popcorn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
GeorgeL
Samba Member


Joined: January 16, 2006
Posts: 7346

GeorgeL is offline 

PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ian wrote:

Why can't it be replicated?? When I have some more time I will try to build what is outlined in the patents. I would love to work with anyone that has facilities to replicate this stuff.


Having patents does not mean that he had a working system.

The fact that nobody else was able to reproduce his results indicates that there is something very fishy about them. This is emphasized by the fact that he would not allow examination of his system by expert witnesses in his fraud trial, choosing instead to lose the trial and repay $25,000 to investors.

You can try to reproduce his results if you like:

http://www.byronwine.com/files/MeyerRep.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Jimmy111
Samba Member


Joined: October 05, 2006
Posts: 2643
Location: Wyoming
Jimmy111 is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did a lot of research in the 1980's about alternative fuels. Always I kept running across these HHO devices. The Idea for this comes from the use of Producer gas in the late 1800's where coal was converted to what is known today as Syn Gas. The coal was heated without enough O2 for complete combustion and the resulting CO and hydrocabon gas was burned as a fuel in factories and streetlighting. Im sure you have all heard of Gas Lamps. This is how the gas was produced. It was noted that Gas Plants in colder more humid climates produed better more calorific gas. Research was done and it was discovered that it was the moisture in the air that gave the added boost to the fuel. Experimentation was done and equipment was manufacured that would inject water directly into the red hot coal. What would happen is that the water woyld pyrolize when subjected to the heat and split into hydrogen and O2. carbon had a higher affinity to O2 than Hydrogen so the O2 would combine with the carbon and form Carbon Monoxide and the Hydrogen would combine with the hydroben and form H2. This provided a net gain in heat energy due to the fact that not as much air was required to form the CO and so there was a savings in heat and more crbon was converted into CO than CO2.
During WW2 many people in the USA and Australia used this technology to produce gas to run their cars on. The equipment was large and not very well designed to to the lack of proper refractories and stainless steels but it did work. There was quite large following untill the war ended and gasoline became cheap again.
The Basis of the HHO systems is this water injection system for the Producer gas plants. But the process is completly different and the water is not being converted into H2O by waste heat. it is necessary to use another generated type of energy to split the water so there is a net loss in efficiency. If there was a way to generate the HHO that did not involve using power generated from the alternator, it would provide a net gain. But as George said there is a 70% loss of enegy due to the use of the alternator.

So again. It is a bad Idea.

If you are interested in reading about this technology, Here are some books that are written in non technical wording.


http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks4/mathot/index.html

http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/hydrogen/index.html

They have another book aout gas plants for cars. You will need to ask.

Here is a book for those HHO believers:
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks7/extr/index.html

www.lindsaybks.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Classifieds Feedback
Ian
Samba Moderator


Joined: August 28, 2002
Posts: 4930
Location: 713
Ian is offline 

PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

GeorgeL wrote:
Ian wrote:

Why can't it be replicated?? When I have some more time I will try to build what is outlined in the patents. I would love to work with anyone that has facilities to replicate this stuff.


Having patents does not mean that he had a working system.

The fact that nobody else was able to reproduce his results indicates that there is something very fishy about them. This is emphasized by the fact that he would not allow examination of his system by expert witnesses in his fraud trial, choosing instead to lose the trial and repay $25,000 to investors.

You can try to reproduce his results if you like:

http://www.byronwine.com/files/MeyerRep.pdf


Thanks for the link!
_________________
All your Buses are belong to us.
Love and good roads!
IN LOVING MEMORY OF ROB CRESS 1968-2012
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Facebook Instagram Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Gary
Person of Interest


Joined: November 01, 2002
Posts: 17069
Location: 127.0.0.1
Gary is offline 

PostPosted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

None of that Joe-Schmo Youtube BS. Here's a company in Oklahoma City that actually makes a Hydrogen Converter for a vehicle. It costs $1,000, which is more realistic than the "$20 in parts from Radio Shack".

http://www.hydrodyno.com/index.php

Local News Article

Quote:

Made in Oklahoma: HydroDyno

•Address: 6701 N Bryant Ave.

•Employees: 10.

•Key personnel: President David High and National Sales Director David Docter.
•Founded: 2006.

•Web site: www.hydrodyno.com.

•Product: HydroDyno Mite, a kit that converts a gasoline powered vehicle into a hydrogen hybrid.

•Background: David High has taken a science fair project idea and turned it into a business. High is president of HydroDyno, a company that began producing hydrogen car conversion kits a couple of years ago.

Father and son team Larry and Brandon Park came up with the idea, spent 14 years developing it, then teamed up with High to form the company.

HydroDyno is producing about 50 units a day, High said. Customers have been individuals and businesses, and HydroDyno has seen interest from international countries, such as India and China. The company just signed on with an Australian dealer, High said.

The product is guaranteed to increase a vehicle's fuel efficiency by 10 percent, but most customers see an increase of 20 percent or more, he said. After the kit was installed on a Nissan Titan pickup this week, it jumped from an average 16 miles per gallon to 22 miles per gallon.

The Mite connects to a vehicle's battery and vacuum line, and takes about 15 minutes to install. Filled with distilled water, it produces a small amount of hydrogen gas that mixes with the fuel to maximize miles per gallon and lower emissions.

"You get more use out of the fuel you're using,” he said.

At a retail price of $999, High said the unit will pay for itself in gasoline savings after about six months.

_________________
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Gallery Classifieds Feedback
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are Mountain Standard Time/Pacific Daylight Savings Time
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Jump to:
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

About | Help! | Advertise | Donate | Premium Membership | Privacy/Terms of Use | Contact Us | Site Map
Copyright © 1996-2023, Everett Barnes. All Rights Reserved.
Not affiliated with or sponsored by Volkswagen of America | Forum powered by phpBB
Links to eBay or other vendor sites may be affiliate links where the site receives compensation.