hahaha what a joke - people still goin on about this BS

 

Tell us how you really feel....

 

I watched this years ago and was fascinated. There are lots of alternatives out there but you really have to do some deep searching. Some tech has been reported sealed as a matter of national security - go figure!
A couple of years ago I watch a documentary where Ford created a durable car with parts made from Hemp. Aside from that this car ran on different types of fuels like alcohol, and petrol. Some of the fastest cars ran on guess what...yep high proof alcohol. These moonshine runners is what gave birth to Nascar. The fuel was easy to get because you could make it in your bathtub, and drink it! It was tough for cop cars to catch these runners with what could be compared to high octane racing fuel vs regular low grade fuel (Rockefeller's version)

Rockefeller being the person he was created a scheme to make alcohol illegal all to promote his fuel which was to be safer for all. We now know the sh#t would contain lead. Well his damn plan worked, they tried to shut down the entire country with a bullsh#t campaign as to why you should not be making your own alcohol.

If you are wired anything like me than you will not be satisfied until you get a kit and try and try for yourself. You'll probably learn a thing or two along the way of what does and does not work.
YOU will have to prove yourself right or wrong, afterall its how you are wired. Break away from the pack and lean into the maverick you are to become.

 

Been there (or am there) have 2 generators I built, and a few PWM power supplies. I worked on these with my Dad and since he slipped into the madness of dimensia, we stopped working on it. Could be time to get back to it as he has passed on. you would be amazed at how much information we collected, even a few correspondences with Stan Meyers. Never connected it to my D1,,,,

 

Who the hell is stupid enough to believe this?
This man is an idiot and a fraud. I can get 20+ mpg coasting down a hill at 1100rpm too! I can run my engine on 87 too - though not good for it.
Seriously people in an age of information why do you believe unfounded statements as fact when you can simply look up the science behind it. No not some idiot on you tube, actual scientific information.... Like how do you split water into Hydrogen and oxygen, how long does that process take, what materials are needed, what conditions need to be met to do so, what is the quantifiable amount yielded.

Stanley Meyer was a fraud, and that is all. All of his patents have expired, yet not one industry has yet to utilize any of his 'designs'. As already stated his designs violates 2 laws of thermodynamics. He was sued by his investors after 3 expert witnesses testified.

So at this point should we just move onto why and how to understand the world isn't flat???

 

I'm not on the Stanley Meyer train, for what it's worth, nor do I subscribe to the HHO arguments for de novo power generation. Agreed, that is a violation of thermodynamic laws and he's a clown.
But his shenanigans are distinct from the original claim under discussion:
Can injection of hydroxyl oxygen into the intake adjust the energy requirement for hydrocarbon gasoline ignition that will permit lower fuel consumption at equal power output

This site has an excellent review of the subject:
https://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam2.shtml

Summary - as suspected, the principles of hydroxy gas injection into engine intake are sound, and doing so can indeed increase thermal efficiency of gasoline combustion by as much as 15%.

However, it is expected that hugely impractical volumes of gas would be required, and for the road conditions used on these devices it is almost certainly not happening. Also, nobody has been able to conduct controlled testing to the author's satisfaction for what should be a relatively straightforward request. To your point, they involve videos of, for example driving downhill, or videos of a manipulated computer output, etc. However, the science of the claim is not in violation of thermodynamic laws, which is likely how companies manage to raise money for their shell game switcheroo products.

Notably, there are people out there reporting success who are not using computers to display instantaneous MPG, they are using volume of gasoline into the tank over number of miles driven on the odometer.
The argument being made is that *some* of those people who are reporting higher MPGs may *actually indeed* be seeing higher MPGs just from running their engines lean - however they must also be seeing increased exhaust gas temperatures and it is not worth the likely breakdown costs. Others may be stupid, or liars, but some are likely actually seeing increases not explained by idiocy or fraud. But there's always a remainder on the equation, and that is likely in cooking their parts.
- incidentally, this is also a likely argument in favor of why car companies do not do HHO, because redesigning engines have failed to scale and adding on to existing ones affects reliability, let alone if they just aren't getting any extra up front value in the first place

This is why the original post was listed in the way it was, because someone claimed to have had one running for 60K miles without messing up his motor, and why identifying that specific installation as true/false would affect basically all downstream considerations.
There might even be engines out there that are perfectly reliable at higher operating temperatures, or where enough HHO can be generated to matter, but without more trusted examples demonstrated, it's not something I have the time for.
This has been fun

 

M.M. - I appreciate that you didnt take that as an attack is it was not meant that way.

Its Meyers design that was proven to violate 2 laws of TD.
Obviously adding a concoction of elements can make improvements. But these arguments still negate the ability to implement it. its not possible or efficient to create this on the fly/demand from a basic prevalent element such as water. So in every scenario you are purchasing another 'fuel' to save fuel.
Just look at the auto regulations regarding emissions/fuel economy, every auto maker would have jumped at this if it was possible and economical.
Anyone claiming they developed some incredible unkown breakthru regarding gasoline combustion is full of it. Its that simple. Gasoline has been study so much, likely more than medical studies.

The best part about this thread is I learned a bit more about chemistry. The worst part is now I have more Meyer and other wackadoodle recommendations in my Youtube feed.

 

If this was possible and feasible, the oil companies would have to figure out how to manufacture water to sell as a fuel. since every time it rains, it is free fuel falling from the sky, they would have to suppress the information or discredit the technology to keep them making profits on existing technology. with electric vehicles, you need to have some sort of storage (batteries) which wear out necessitates replacement.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I choose not to drink the Koolaid the government gives out. that is my opinion and I will stand by it.

I have generated hydrogen using a 20 oz plastic soda bottle (plastic) with a couple of nails, wire and a 12v battery. we made enough to launch the bottle 20 feet into the air with a match on the end of a stick while we were camping in the woods.

according to the laws of flight, a bumble bee can't possibly fly but they figured out how to do it...