More MPG - Hydrogen Kit

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Hi to all ye nay sayers,
Yes it can be done(water is hydrogen and oxygen)
It just needs investment, problem is if you perfect it you will dissapear into thin air,
Whats the government going to do! Tax water ! Then theres the oil companys,
I have tried this little exsperiment in my shed , but deemed it to be dangerous so i will leave it to the experts , dont knock it if you aint tried it , it just makes you look ignorant ,

I'm happy to be ignorant and keep my hard earned in my pocket thank you.:smokin:
 
by running an alternator in order to do the electrolysis, you're not creating more energy in the process, you're losing energy.
 
Hustle, the only man to discover this method properly was killed and all records are held by the govement in the usa
 
Hi to all ye nay sayers,
Yes it can be done(water is hydrogen and oxygen)
It just needs investment, problem is if you perfect it you will dissapear into thin air,
Whats the government going to do! Tax water ! Then theres the oil companys,
I have tried this little exsperiment in my shed , but deemed it to be dangerous so i will leave it to the experts , dont knock it if you aint tried it , it just makes you look ignorant ,

You need electricity to hydrolyse the water to obtain H2 or HHO. That electricity can only come from your alternator, and the power to run that comes from your fuel. Unless the whole process is perfectly 100% efficient (no process is, by definition) you WILL have a net LOSS of energy in the process, ergo it is NOT possible to 'improve' power or MPG like this.

Hydrolysis of water is not a new concept, it is done all the time! Don't confuse intelligence and informed knowledge with ignorance... The 'ignorance' is on the part of the people who fall for this crap!
 
You need electricity to hydrolyse the water to obtain H2 or HHO. That electricity can only come from your alternator, and the power to run that comes from your fuel. Unless the whole process is perfectly 100% efficient (no process is, by definition) you WILL have a net LOSS of energy in the process, ergo it is NOT possible to 'improve' power or MPG like this.

Hydrolysis of water is not a new concept, it is done all the time! Don't confuse intelligence and informed knowledge with ignorance... The 'ignorance' is on the part of the people who fall for this crap!


Stop it Clarky you will never convince them. Some people actually believe in god also i hear. :D
 
Jesus , i cant believe you brought god into it ,now were in the poop!!

Well both are just as believable. But leaving one out. You can indeed make Hydrogen from water. But the amount you would need to make to have any significant use in an engine, would take more electrical energy than the engine is capable of generating using it to drive a generator alone. Never mind power a car as well. We are talking a need for cubic feet a minute here not cubic feet a year.
 
Last edited:
If this was the way to do it people wouldn't have designed the fuel cell the way they did. The fuel cell works in the same basis but swaps the inputs and outputs. Instead of using electricity to splt water into hydrogen and oxygen the fuel cell uses hydrogen to create the electric and water.
 
Slightly off subject, but does anyone remember 'Jet Ignitors' from the '60s?
A "guaranteed for life" Spark plug, that also increased the Bang power.
ie: It produced a much fatter spark, which burned more of the fuel.

Where did they disappear to?

Champion bought the UK patent and took them off the market !
Why? 'cos they bloody worked mate.

I've still got a set (later called Fire-Power Plugs) that I managed to find in the JC Whitney catalogue in the '80s, but they were an end of line offer that disappeared soon after.

Regretably, mine are a short reach fat bodied type, and there's only four of them, so I can't try 'em in the V8 Rangie.

One day I'll find a motor that fits them.

Johnny.
 
Slightly off subject, but does anyone remember 'Jet Ignitors' from the '60s?
A "guaranteed for life" Spark plug, that also increased the Bang power.
ie: It produced a much fatter spark, which burned more of the fuel.

Where did they disappear to?

Champion bought the UK patent and took them off the market !
Why? 'cos they bloody worked mate.

I've still got a set (later called Fire-Power Plugs) that I managed to find in the JC Whitney catalogue in the '80s, but they were an end of line offer that disappeared soon after.

Regretably, mine are a short reach fat bodied type, and there's only four of them, so I can't try 'em in the V8 Rangie.

One day I'll find a motor that fits them.

Johnny.

The plug only ignites the fuel it does not burn it. It does not matter how big the spark is the fuel will only burn at one rate. There is some merit in fitting a second plug at the other side of the combustion chamber, so the charge is lit from both sides simultaniously. As used in large capacity cylinders of aircraft engines. But a single plug cannot do that. No matter how big the spark is.
 
The plug only ignites the fuel it does not burn it. It does not matter how big the spark is the fuel will only burn at one rate. There is some merit in fitting a second plug at the other side of the combustion chamber, so the charge is lit from both sides simultaneously. As used in large capacity cylinders of aircraft engines. But a single plug cannot do that. No matter how big the spark is.

I respect your opinion, but I do not bow to it. I have used them in several different cars, and found them to be very effective. My mistake was to sell a car on with the standard size set still fitted.

As you say "There is some merit in fitting a second plug at the other side of the combustion chamber, so the charge is lit from both sides simultaneously." The ignitor forms six simultaneous sparks which effectively blend into one large circular one. thus a bigger spark will ignite more of the available fuel. To paraphrase ... the difference between lighting charcoal with a match, or a blowlamp.

But all opinions aside, I'm not trying to sell the things. They are no longer on the market.

Johnny.
 
I respect your opinion, but I do not bow to it. I have used them in several different cars, and found them to be very effective. My mistake was to sell a car on with the standard size set still fitted.

As you say "There is some merit in fitting a second plug at the other side of the combustion chamber, so the charge is lit from both sides simultaneously." The ignitor forms six simultaneous sparks which effectively blend into one large circular one. thus a bigger spark will ignite more of the available fuel. To paraphrase ... the difference between lighting charcoal with a match, or a blowlamp.

But all opinions aside, I'm not trying to sell the things. They are no longer on the market.

Johnny.

One would wonder then if they were so good, why Champion did not market them under their brand name. Can't see how Champion could buy the British patent when they were made by Jet Flame Ignition Co,inc Mineola, New York.
 
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that due to the much better spark provided by modern ignition systems then there is no need for those type of plugs anymore. :)
 
From what i can gather they were just a normal plug electrode within a chamber, with outlet holes in it. The mixture was forced into the chamber then was ignited in the normal way inside this chamber and supposedly a jet of burning gas shot out of the holes in the bottom to ignite the rest of the mixture. A simular method is used on Jet engine igniters i believe but they have their own fuel supply.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, we seem to have latched onto a different plug here. The ones I used in the 60s were 'Jet Ignitors', which were made in UK, not 'Jet Flame Igniters' from USA.

Champion bought the patent for them in order to take them off the market, and UK manufacture ceased. No manufacturer wants a product that is guarenteed for life, do they.

The 18mm plugs I have now were bought in Chicago as 'Fire-Power Plugs', but are identical to the old 'Jet Ignitors'. Neither of which have the electrodes in any form of chamber. The electrodes are fully exposed.

Being 18mm short reach, I've not found a motor to put them in for many years now, so it willl take some digging in the shed to find them, but I'll try to post a picture of them. Pretty sure there is an illustrated pamphlet with them too.

Johnny.
 
Sorry, we seem to have latched onto a different plug here. The ones I used in the 60s were 'Jet Ignitors', which were made in UK, not 'Jet Flame Igniters' from USA.

Champion bought the patent for them in order to take them off the market, and UK manufacture ceased. No manufacturer wants a product that is guarenteed for life, do they.

The 18mm plugs I have now were bought in Chicago as 'Fire-Power Plugs', but are identical to the old 'Jet Ignitors'. Neither of which have the electrodes in any form of chamber. The electrodes are fully exposed.

Being 18mm short reach, I've not found a motor to put them in for many years now, so it willl take some digging in the shed to find them, but I'll try to post a picture of them. Pretty sure there is an illustrated pamphlet with them too.

Johnny.


Ok stick some photos on let's have a look at them. :)
 
Will do, but as I said, they are buried in my shed somewhere. It may take some time to find them. It's a big shed.

Meantime, any opinions on the Range Rover V8's Pulsair Air injection system. I cannot get my head around that one at all.

Johnny.
 
Back
Top