Someone else who thinks they can save you 50% fuel

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Mythbusters tested one a couple of years ago, it produce next to nothing and made no difference to the engine. A regular new set of plugs and a air filter would possibly save you more fuel. And be a lot cheaper.
 
How the F@@k did the suppose owner of the company, happen to hook up to this thread???? Hmmm very fishy.. Btw i think the likes of BP or Shell would have sussed thus out?? LOB!
 
I was skeptical about the existence of Browns gas in the first place (some time ago), but Browns gas is a reality. Do some research via Google. I thought this was bull**** but no, however the effectual temperature range is limited. It does work in certain welding situations, but in an internal combustion engine , I doubt it. Another snake oil ad I think. I don't think this would have the desired effect, come to think of it possibly raise the temperature too much !
You decide. :croc:
 
Many alleged water-fuelled cars obtain hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen (sometimes called "oxyhydrogen", "HHO", or "Brown's Gas") by the electrolysis of water, a process that must be powered with electricity. The hydrogen or oxyhydrogen is then burned, supposedly powering the car and also providing the energy to electrolyse more water. The overall process can be represented by the following chemical equations:
2H2O → 2H2 + O2 [Electrolysis step]2H2 + O2 → 2H2O [Combustion step] Since the combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step, the energy released in combustion exactly equals the energy consumed in the electrolysis step, and—even assuming 100% efficiency—there would be no energy left over to power the car. In other words, such systems start and end in the same thermodynamic state, and are therefore perpetual motion machines, violating the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, under actual conditions in which hydrogen is burned, efficiency is limited by the second law of thermodynamics and is likely to be around 20%.[10][11] More energy is therefore required to drive the electrolysis cell than can be extracted from burning the resulting hydrogen-oxygen mixture.


So this b*ll*cks then?
 
adamrharding said:
Many alleged water-fuelled cars obtain hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen (sometimes called "oxyhydrogen", "HHO", or "Brown's Gas") by the electrolysis of water, a process that must be powered with electricity. The hydrogen or oxyhydrogen is then burned, supposedly powering the car and also providing the energy to electrolyse more water. The overall process can be represented by the following chemical equations:
2H2O → 2H2 + O2 [Electrolysis step]2H2 + O2 → 2H2O [Combustion step] Since the combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step, the energy released in combustion exactly equals the energy consumed in the electrolysis step, and—even assuming 100% efficiency—there would be no energy left over to power the car. In other words, such systems start and end in the same thermodynamic state, and are therefore perpetual motion machines, violating the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, under actual conditions in which hydrogen is burned, efficiency is limited by the second law of thermodynamics and is likely to be around 20%.[10][11] More energy is therefore required to drive the electrolysis cell than can be extracted from burning the resulting hydrogen-oxygen mixture.


So this b*ll*cks then?
Click to expand...

Sounds about right to me. The nearest thing to perpetual motion yet devised is a tax mans hand.
 
My Rangei perpetually breaks down, so the first law sucks!! and its NOT limited, so the 2nd law is crap too, scientific!!! what the hell do they know?? cant even get the bloody weather right, billions of £££ worth of equipment, satellites etc, and there's some pleb in Cornwall with his pine cones and seaweed getting it right more than them
 
Last edited:
adamrharding said:
Many alleged water-fuelled cars obtain hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen (sometimes called "oxyhydrogen", "HHO", or "Brown's Gas") by the electrolysis of water, a process that must be powered with electricity. The hydrogen or oxyhydrogen is then burned, supposedly powering the car and also providing the energy to electrolyse more water. The overall process can be represented by the following chemical equations:
2H2O → 2H2 + O2 [Electrolysis step]2H2 + O2 → 2H2O [Combustion step] Since the combustion step is the exact reverse of the electrolysis step, the energy released in combustion exactly equals the energy consumed in the electrolysis step, and—even assuming 100% efficiency—there would be no energy left over to power the car. In other words, such systems start and end in the same thermodynamic state, and are therefore perpetual motion machines, violating the first law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, under actual conditions in which hydrogen is burned, efficiency is limited by the second law of thermodynamics and is likely to be around 20%.[10][11] More energy is therefore required to drive the electrolysis cell than can be extracted from burning the resulting hydrogen-oxygen mixture.


So this b*ll*cks then?
Click to expand...

totally wrong , the hydrogen is used as a catalyst to burn ALL the existing fuel.

on a 3 litre range rover 30 % has been achieved , and no i'm not selling you one ! , i just develop the control technology as using a cell by itself will not really work. If an engine is burning ALL the fuel then its very efficient and there are no gains to be had, most all engines can not do this. SO introducing the correct amount of HHO will give extra power as ALL the fuel is burned and MPG is increased if the vehicle is not driven like a rocket with all that extra power , fuel gains will be achieved. Some engines will not work with this technology, however petrol range rovers do respond very well. believe this or not, I care not a Jot.
 
Last edited:
I've had a quick scan through and it's odd that they have spent loads on R&D since 2008, this has been around for years so a quick Google would have saved them a fortune! It's also odd that the only two people who have a positive thing to say are one post wonders with an interest in the company.

I haven't found any comments from real people who have tried this yet but I'll keep looking as I'm always looking at alternative fuels or ways to improve MPG. I actually tested the fuel line magnets years ago - they didn't make a difference
 
If it works let a few of us from different areas try it. I also first saw this few year ago and had look into it as was doubtful. The more looked at it the more bull it seemed. If it works come fit to my car for free,if it works then ill back you. I only do about 50 mile a week, but that £20. Put your money where your mouth is
 
If these systems work then they would be sold as power generation units such as the victory wood gas units. Nothing I have seen so far makes me believe the volume claims. There have been frequency and voltage claims to act as a catalyst if these were true then there would be a product that could be viewed
 
odyssey said:
"on a 3 litre range rover 30 % has been achieved"

Really? can't remember them ever making one . . .
Click to expand...

yes ACTUALLY

quote from a user who is using it , and no i didnt sell it toi him and he installed it himself

*** from UK called me yesterday, Rover almost at 40mpg and he is delighted, sent me some pics but I couldnt open
on mobile phone.
He says he has an ***** but said he will not discuss on phone ??
 
pcdev2004 said:
yes ACTUALLY

quote from a user who is using it , and no i didnt sell it toi him and he installed it himself

Deluded from UK called me yesterday, Rover almost at 40mpg and he is delighted, sent me some pics but I couldnt open
on mobile phone.
He says he has an appointment with a psychiatrist but said he will not discuss on phone ??
Click to expand...

Edited for accuracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Fuel cap not threading
Replies
1
Views
238
Graculus
Graculus
kermit_rr
Leakoff pipes/ spill lines
2 3
Replies
41
Views
3K
kermit_rr
kermit_rr
P
P38 2.5 None start
Replies
5
Views
618
Mark Piercy
Mark Piercy
R
Put the wrong fuel in! Can anyone help?
Replies
5
Views
602
Graculus
Graculus
sirmarcus
L322 Suspected blocked fuel breather/fuel gauge error
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
sirmarcus
sirmarcus
Back
Top