Saturday, Nov 22, 2008 at 16:57
Flywest, Yes I did my homework and yes, as I stated in my followup I did Google it and in fact from the wiki I quote
"Oxyhydrogen is often mentioned in conjunction with devices that claim to operate a car using
water as a fuel. Because the energy required to split
water exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency."
At no stage did I state that a petroleum vehicle was efficient and that a car wouldn't run on Browns gas.
Petroleum is refined before you put it in your
tank, thus all you have to do is burn it, and yes there are pollutants and it is very inefficient etc. (especially my 4WD!!).
If you want to run a car only on HHO by only putting
water in the
tank, then you need an additional source of energy to help in doing that as the energy released by burning HHO will not produce enough to turn the
water into it's gaseous elements as
well as power the car, hence the comments and the quote above.
As I said originally, I don't like to be pessimistic and I certainly don't want to sound like a know-it-all or to bag anyone's comments, but if what I know and understand conflicts with something in a post, then I will (politely) offer my side of the argument.
I have seen a number of cars running with HHO devices as an add-on to their normal petrol engine with all kinds of claims regarding power and economy. I am yet to be convinced, but there's no way I will condemn anyone who thinks otherwise.
Have a great day.
Gerry
FollowupID:
604130