: Major Gas Saver - Could This Be "It"?



Lord Cadillac
05-08-08, 11:03 PM
Device promises to save 60% at the pump


First, we needed to know how many miles to the gallon we were getting in our vehicle. So we put it on something called a dynamometer, think of it as a giant treadmill where we ran the truck for twenty minutes at 55-miles an hour on a full tank of gas.

Once done, we found that even with an oil change, clean air filter and proper tire pressure, we were averaging roughly 9.4 miles to the gallon.

We then ran our truck on the street for close to a month with the Hydro-4000 running. The owners said this would give the device time to clean out the engine. We then put our vehicle back on the dynamometer, and did the same test all over again.

And guess what? With the device on, we were now averaging 23.2 miles to the gallon. That's 61% better than the gas mileage we were previously getting.

We also road tested the device. There we averaged 16-point-one miles to the gallon, which is 58% better than before.

Read the full story (http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28)
See the product (http://www.hydro4000.com/)

Reply with thoughts and opinions...

AMGoff
05-08-08, 11:43 PM
I have to admit... I'm slightly confused by this device. So they're basically using electrolysis to create hydrogen and then pumping that hydrogen into the air/fuel mixture?

I dunno...

They also seem to be using a play on words, well... lying actually by saying their device is also known as a "fuel cell," but in reality it's not... one could also view it as a "reverse" fuel cell... but even then, that's misleading because it's not a fuel cell at all. A true fuel cell takes hydrogen, combines it with oxygen to make water, and the byproduct of that reaction is excess energy. So a true "fuel cell" vehicle is an entirely electric vehicle by which its only physical byproduct is water... and the biggest reason there aren't such vehicles is because we yet to have the infrastructure, nor the proper storage means for hydrogen... which is what an actual fuel cell runs on... not water.

So again... I dunno... I mean, hydrogen is a volatile substance which I suppose could theoretically add some more "bang" to the fuel/air mixture... but again.. I dunno...

hueterm
05-08-08, 11:54 PM
It looks like they got good results, but I'd be worried about any impact it could have on the engine....

I'd have to see the automakers adopt it into new models before I'd be willing to try.

Lord Cadillac
05-09-08, 12:34 AM
What do you guys think about the statement by Channel 5 News? Are they lying? Or did they really get nearly 60% more mileage from their fuel?

dkozloski
05-09-08, 12:50 AM
This is pure BS. The energy to separate the hydrogen comes from the alternator which is driven by the motor. Electrolysis is inefficient. More electricity would be required for the separation than would ever be returned by injecting the hydrogen back into the motor. This is either a bald face lie or a scam. The only reason anything like this gets any play at all in the news is that the U.S. public is ignorant in all matters involving science. The reason the seller says that it takes a while to "clean out the engine" is to give him time to blow town before the pigeons come looking for him with the tar and feathers. This is the oldest line in the "gas saver" book. The saddest part is that there are people who actually fall for this rediculous shit.

illumina
05-09-08, 12:54 AM
Well, I read somewhere some time ago that water caused metal to rust. Engines are metal :p

I also heard somewhere that the news will try any story for ratings. You know what I seen on the news tonight? Did you know that gas prices are high! Imagine that :D

Yeah, I would have to see some serious reviews before I put this on my car!

Lord Cadillac
05-09-08, 02:52 AM
This is pure BS. The energy to separate the hydrogen comes from the alternator which is driven by the motor. Electrolysis is inefficient. More electricity would be required for the separation than would ever be returned by injecting the hydrogen back into the motor. This is either a bald face lie or a scam. The only reason anything like this gets any play at all in the news is that the U.S. public is ignorant in all matters involving science. The reason the seller says that it takes a while to "clean out the engine" is to give him time to blow town before the pigeons come looking for him with the tar and feathers. This is the oldest line in the "gas saver" book. The saddest part is that there are people who actually fall for this rediculous shit.
It just seems that with so much attention on gas prices, that Channel 5 News show is really putting their reputation on the line if this doesn't work. I mean, they actually say it works.

AAIIIC
05-09-08, 03:22 AM
It just seems that with so much attention on gas prices, that Channel 5 News show is really putting their reputation on the line if this doesn't work. I mean, they actually say it works.
Yes, they're actually saying it works because...


This is pure BS. The energy to separate the hydrogen comes from the alternator which is driven by the motor. Electrolysis is inefficient. More electricity would be required for the separation than would ever be returned by injecting the hydrogen back into the motor. This is either a bald face lie or a scam. The only reason anything like this gets any play at all in the news is that the U.S. public is ignorant in all matters involving science.
It's not like the local news team is a fountain of knowledge when it comes to matters of science. Hell, just their "test" is so full of holes that the results are absolutely meaningless. What truck are they driving that got 9.4mpg driving 55mph on the "giant treadmill" we call a "dynamometer"? :rolleyes: That single piece of data immediately raises the bullshit flag - a vehicle rolling on a dyno at 55mph, with no wind resistance to overcome, little rolling resistance, no incline, no nothing, should be barely sipping from the fuel tank. The fact they got 9.4mpg is recockulous.

The difference in mileage could easily have been generated by changing the loading on the dyno. I can run a vehicle on the dyno at 55mph with nearly 0 load (23.2mpg), or I can crank up the load so the driver has to maintain 50% throttle just to maintain the speed (9.4mpg). Wow! Magic!!

And just to cap off the ultra-scientific test, they compare their actual on-the-road test to the dyno test. They got 16.1mpg on the road, and point out that that's 58% better than before. Ummmm, isn't that also 30% worse than your dynamometer test showed? So which number is right? What was the mileage when you did the on-the-road testing prior to installing the Hydro-4000? Ohhhhh, you didn't do that? :rolleyes:

As for the science of it, dkozloski's explanation is exactly right. You will use more energy to power the electrolysis process than you get back by burning the hydrogen produced. A quick google will find explanations all over the 'net like the one here - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080424111822AAiYMJ0 - that debunk this shit.

Edit: I couldn't help it, I had to go watch the video. When I read the article and it said their "truck" got 9.4mpg I was thinking maybe they had tested the thing on a big news truck - you know, the ones with the satellite dish on top. Instead, it's a freaking Dodge Durango. 9.4mpg from a ****ing Durango? And they report that like it's perfectly normal! What a bunch of idiots.

Highline Cady
05-09-08, 03:45 AM
I have a bridge for sale. Any takers?

Red_October_7000
05-09-08, 03:48 AM
This thing unfortunately isn't "it". You can't win by cracking water for hydrogen and then burning that hydrogen in the same engine that's producing the electricity that cracks the water for the hydrogen in the first place. You actually lose a little by doing that because the system is imperfect. It's a shame these don't work, but they don't. If there was a $1200 device you could put in your car and increase its fuel mileage by 60%, the automakers would equip them standard because CAFE ratings are choking them to death. The easy steps you can take aren't done for other reasons -lower restriction exhaust makes the cars noisy, high effieciency air cleaners need to be loaded with messy oil every year and add $30-100 cost for a fractional MPG return (seeing "big" numbers like 1 or 2 usually comes when you toss a nasty old paper air cleaner for a brand new oil loaded one). Other than those two things, and the exhaust isn't "easy", there is little you can do to increase MPG by a lot.

There IS, however, a $4,000 device you can equip on your truck right from the factory that increases its mileage by %60... it's called a Diesel!

70eldo
05-09-08, 06:18 AM
There IS, however, a $4,000 device you can equip on your truck right from the factory that increases its mileage by %60... it's called a Diesel!

Good call! :highfive:

dkozloski
05-09-08, 10:42 AM
Good call! :highfive:
Even that's a waste of money because you have to pay a premium for diesel fuel. That puts you right back to square one.

Submariner409
05-09-08, 11:28 AM
If I'm not mistaken, this little scam was beat to death in CF about a year or so back........

Several frequent posters, members of CF, are intimately familiar with the operation: Nuclear submarines use the exact same process to supply oxygen in order to maintain the atmosphere while under water for 80+ days. It is an electrical, electronic, and mechanical operation which requires large amounts of electrical energy and extremely careful monitoring because, in our case, one byproduct is explosive Hydrogen, which we return to the seawater (and which blows up car batteries if you strike a spark nearby while charging). Power-wise, the heat capability of the reactor used allows us to generate vast amounts of electricity while loafing along......a car can't do that.

Nuf ced. Scam - Big time.

MauiV
05-09-08, 12:22 PM
I went to public school so someone may have to explain this math to me....

"Once done, we found that even with an oil change, clean air filter and proper tire pressure, we were averaging roughly 9.4 miles to the gallon."

"With the device on, we were now averaging 23.2 miles to the gallon. That's 61% better than the gas mileage we were previously getting."

from 9.4 mpg to 23.2 mpg is about 150% increase with the calculator in my head.

And these are the people that the public rely on for "facts"? No wonder people in Florida dont know how to fill out a ballot.

Lord Cadillac
05-09-08, 12:42 PM
Recockulous! That's hilarious! Otherwise, the 9 miles per gallon on the Durango raised a red flag for me as well. I thought the same thing as you - that it was a bigger, heavier truck.. And I did notice they never did a regular road test for the truck.

Oh well.. Wishful thinking....


Yes, they're actually saying it works because...


It's not like the local news team is a fountain of knowledge when it comes to matters of science. Hell, just their "test" is so full of holes that the results are absolutely meaningless. What truck are they driving that got 9.4mpg driving 55mph on the "giant treadmill" we call a "dynamometer"? :rolleyes: That single piece of data immediately raises the bullshit flag - a vehicle rolling on a dyno at 55mph, with no wind resistance to overcome, little rolling resistance, no incline, no nothing, should be barely sipping from the fuel tank. The fact they got 9.4mpg is recockulous.

The difference in mileage could easily have been generated by changing the loading on the dyno. I can run a vehicle on the dyno at 55mph with nearly 0 load (23.2mpg), or I can crank up the load so the driver has to maintain 50% throttle just to maintain the speed (9.4mpg). Wow! Magic!!

And just to cap off the ultra-scientific test, they compare their actual on-the-road test to the dyno test. They got 16.1mpg on the road, and point out that that's 58% better than before. Ummmm, isn't that also 30% worse than your dynamometer test showed? So which number is right? What was the mileage when you did the on-the-road testing prior to installing the Hydro-4000? Ohhhhh, you didn't do that? :rolleyes:

As for the science of it, dkozloski's explanation is exactly right. You will use more energy to power the electrolysis process than you get back by burning the hydrogen produced. A quick google will find explanations all over the 'net like the one here - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080424111822AAiYMJ0 - that debunk this shit.

Edit: I couldn't help it, I had to go watch the video. When I read the article and it said their "truck" got 9.4mpg I was thinking maybe they had tested the thing on a big news truck - you know, the ones with the satellite dish on top. Instead, it's a freaking Dodge Durango. 9.4mpg from a ****ing Durango? And they report that like it's perfectly normal! What a bunch of idiots.

The Tony Show
05-09-08, 01:03 PM
I love that the dyno test returned 9mpg at a steady 55mph cruise. What are they using for news vehicles- Vipers? :lol:

70eldo
05-09-08, 01:04 PM
Even that's a waste of money because you have to pay a premium for diesel fuel. That puts you right back to square one.

in Europe the diesel is cheaper than gasoline ;)

dkozloski
05-09-08, 02:09 PM
in Europe the diesel is cheaper than gasoline ;)
Diesel used to be cheaper in the U.S. until low sulphur diesel was mandated. Then the price went out of sight. The nearest refinery to Alaska that can produce low sulphur fuel is in California so the crude is shipped to California, refined, and the diesel shipped all the way back. Somehow wasting all the fuel on transportation is good for the environment.

Destroyer
05-09-08, 02:29 PM
What do you guys think about the statement by Channel 5 News? Are they lying? Or did they really get nearly 60% more mileage from their fuel?
Is it part of the FOX network?

JTraik
05-09-08, 02:48 PM
Why buy snake oil when you can have a snake oil machine.

AMGoff
05-09-08, 03:01 PM
I still haven't read the actual article... but I'll second the notion that local news outlets aren't exactly known for in-depth scientific research... As has been said, they pander to the lowest common denominator for the sake of ratings and since gas prices are on everyone's minds, they're going to a big story on this... I bet they've been running promos for this "big story" all week. Had they used an independent third party to do the test, that would've given it a little more credit... but unfortunately it was done by the same folks who were looking for the highest ratings.

I really didn't care what the news story had to say... I just went right to the product page and immediately, I knew something wasn't right. I love how they say it won't void the car's warranty... I guarantee if you blow your engine up because you bolted on a device that pumps a volatile element such as hydrogen into the air/fuel mixture, the manufacturer isn't going to cover the cost of a new engine.

Just goes to show that any time people have fears, worries, or concerns... there will always be someone else waiting to take advantage of them.

The Tony Show
05-09-08, 03:39 PM
Ahahahahahahaha!


This gaseous mixture is actually a better fuel than hydrogen alone. Reason - in many areas of the world, oxygen is in short supply in the air we breathe. Normally, oxygen comprises 21% of our air at sea level. If this percentage falls below 5%, serious consequences, even the death of many people, could occur. For instance, there have been reports of oxygen levels in the 6 to 7% percent range in Tokyo. The widespread use of Brown's gas to power industry and transportation, might actually improve oxygen levels in cities like Tokyo whereas, using hydrogen as a fuel by itself, would tend to leave low oxygen levels unchanged. A low oxygen level in the atmosphere is just another indicator of how serious our environmental problems have become and an excellent reason to convert our civilization to a Brown's gas-fueled future.

Not only does the "Hydro4000" (:rolleyes:) save you fuel, but it is also capable of saving the people of Japan from asphyxiation. :rofl:

Sinister Angel
05-10-08, 07:45 PM
Even that's a waste of money because you have to pay a premium for diesel fuel. That puts you right back to square one.

Jet-A for the win. Last I checked, it's cheaper than diesel ;)

MauiV
05-10-08, 11:17 PM
I know our av center was charging $7.85+ for fuel during Derby. We had 308 corporates on the ground at race time and it felt like the entire NetJet (Execjet, tailnumbers end in QS for QuarterShare) fleet came and went SEVERAL times. More than a few guys had $15,000+ fuel bills. A stretch MD-80 with a Cayman Island call sign came in with all of 6 people on board. That was money well spent.

Submariner409
05-11-08, 11:32 AM
Just read the paragraph in Post #22.

That is absolutely the worst and most pathetic, incorrect, impossible line of bullcrap I've ever seen.

Maybe someone else has used P.T. Barnum's line already: "There's a sucker born every minute".

dkozloski
05-11-08, 02:15 PM
Just read the paragraph in Post #22.

That is absolutely the worst and most pathetic, incorrect, impossible line of bullcrap I've ever seen.

Maybe someone else has used P.T. Barnum's line already: "There's a sucker born every minute".
It's no worse that the line of bushwa that the man-made global warming fanatics try to peddle.

Sinister Angel
05-11-08, 03:12 PM
I know our av center was charging $7.85+ for fuel during Derby. We had 308 corporates on the ground at race time and it felt like the entire NetJet (Execjet, tailnumbers end in QS for QuarterShare) fleet came and went SEVERAL times. More than a few guys had $15,000+ fuel bills. A stretch MD-80 with a Cayman Island call sign came in with all of 6 people on board. That was money well spent.

Hrm. I'll have to check a flight release next time I'm at work to see what it is

Sinister Angel
05-11-08, 03:15 PM
Actually...



FLIGHT SEQUENCE: FUEL SUMMARY:
FLT FRM TO TOA AL1 AL2 TAXI B/O ALTF RESV HOLD MINTO RLSF
---- --- --- --- --- --- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- -----
5901 TVC ORD TVC 210 2102 1813 2461 600 6976 8200

TAKEOFF: TVC RWY 28 FLAPS 20 TEMP 006 FUEL PRICE 3.80
LANDING: ORD RWY 04R FLAPS 45 TEMP 012 FUEL PRICE 3.55

AAIIIC
05-11-08, 09:52 PM
Even if the below paragraph wasn't full of BS, just the horrible grammar alone would raise red flags. That's actually what I thought watching the News5 video clip, too. The spokesman for the Hydro4000 sounded like an idiot.


Reason - in many areas of the world, oxygen is in short supply in the air we breathe. Normally, oxygen comprises 21% of our air at sea level. If this percentage falls below 5%, serious consequences, even the death of many people, could occur. For instance, there have been reports of oxygen levels in the 6 to 7% percent range in Tokyo.
There's no "could occur" at all in that scenario. Everybody would asphyxiate, without a doubt. Using the magic of the good ole Wikipedia...

“At oxygen concentrations [in air] of 4 to 6%, there is loss of consciousness in 40 seconds and death within a few minutes” (DiMaio & DiMaio 2001:231).
I don't know about you guys, but I haven't heard anything on the news about millions of Tokyo residents suddenly dying due to low oxygen levels. :rolleyes:

As submariner409 can attest, the low limit for O2 on subs is 17%. Even going from 17% to 20% causes a noticeable change in people's energy levels.


Just read the paragraph in Post #22.

That is absolutely the worst and most pathetic, incorrect, impossible line of bullcrap I've ever seen.
Awww, c'mon, submariner409. You know we run around with O2 down in the 5-6% range all the time! We only do it during nap time, though, so nobody really notices the low O2 content. :p

trukk
05-12-08, 12:09 PM
Well, flarn. It looks like this isn't compatible with my Tornado, Electric Super Charger, or Flux Capicitor. DAMN IT!!!!

-Chris

70eldo
05-12-08, 12:36 PM
Maybe someone else has used P.T. Barnum's line already: "There's a sucker born every minute".

With a global birth rate of 1 per second, 1 sucker in 60 does not represent the reality. I fear that must be a lot more. Or you have to state that all these suckers are born in a particular place? ;)

Submariner409
05-12-08, 02:23 PM
:rolleyes: ...........only the ones which haunt car info forums.........

jonnyd
05-12-08, 02:27 PM
this might actually be a good idea...it is kind of comparable to a methkit. it seems to be realistic and it might actually work

Krashed989
05-12-08, 03:51 PM
Hahaha!!!


:bsmeter:



You could always buy a solar panel. Then hook it up to make it do electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen outside of your car. You would need a professional to compress it into a tank for you though.

AMGoff
05-12-08, 04:11 PM
Hmmm... I could probably build one of these kits for less than a hundred bucks, then I could undercut these guys by 40-50% and still have a huge profit margin... then all I'd have to do is market to Mr. & Mrs. Greenie-Weenie Enviro-Hippy, I could just set up a display out side of organic and whole food markets... Hmmm... I like it - I'm tired of making an honest living.. lol!

70eldo
05-13-08, 01:17 PM
Environmentaly green transportation Solution:

http://www.hollywood-diecast.com/flinstones%20car%20eBay.jpg

Thomas Carey
05-13-08, 01:28 PM
I think it's a bunch of B.S. I suspect somehow the new station was fooled with bogus results. That or they greased someones palm.

Best Regards,

Thomas Carey

Thomas Carey
05-13-08, 01:30 PM
I love that the dyno test returned 9mpg at a steady 55mph cruise. What are they using for news vehicles- Vipers? :lol:

No doubt! :lildevil:

Best Regards,

Thomas Carey