Kevin Grandia | August 15, 2006 By Kevin Grandia • Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 17:55 Share Tweet Reddit Share Check out this video. 100 mile car trip uses only 4 ounces of water. Can't wait to the industry-backed PR spin for this one: “If we use water for our cars, oceans will be depleted and fish will die!” Click here for reuse options! Kevin Grandia's blog Share Tweet Reddit Share PRINT SUBSCRIBE ‹ PREVIOUSThree Degrees of Separation -- From Almost EverythingNEXT ›Royal Society Answers the Climate Change Skeptics, Point for Point View the discussion thread. Comments wacki replied on Tue, 2006-08-15 19:31 Permalink hho ya, NASA’s jet propulsion lab came out with this in the 70’s. It just makes the gas burn cleaner. It’s been used in trucks for years. Costs like 2K a unit. I’d like to know what is so special about these guys though. Seems like they are just re-patenting the same technology that has been around for decades. That video is very misleading. The cars aren’t going to run off of just water. So that guy seems like a con and FoxNews got duped. Kgrandia replied on Tue, 2006-08-15 19:42 Permalink Too good to be true... Oh well, I can dream can’t I. Do you have any info/links to back this up, would make a great post… Wacki replied on Wed, 2006-08-16 03:53 Permalink hho I really don’t understand why people are just now hearing about this. A buddy of mine has been doing this for years with a homemade device. As for the wired article ” The HFI units are relatively small and cost between $4,000 and $14,000, depending on the size of the vehicle.” That kind of shocks me because as far as I know it’s just electrolysis. From what I gather, that small box is basically 2 needles and some electricity so it’s insanely overpriced. Unless there is some super secret tech that’s using some law of physics I’m not aware of I really don’t understand how these people are charging so much. This is especially true since NASA is the one that came up with the idea. http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,69529,00.html http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html http://www.chechfi.ca/ http://www.all4engineers.com/index.php;do=show/alloc=3/lng=en/id=2866/sid=788ad5c1ceb203c0e36fd63ec6f846fc http://www.arvinmeritor.com/media_room/4_cas_smaling_files/v3_document.htm This is one of their patents posted on their site: http://www.chechfi.ca/pdfs/patent_cdn.pdf Notice it doesn’t say anything usefu/informative I tried looking for the patent from these guys: http://hytechapps.com/ But then I got bored. If anyone has a link please post. Spam Gobbler replied on Wed, 2006-08-16 08:16 Permalink H2O vs. HHO HHO works. There’s no problem with that. But what isn’t mentioned is that it takes an enormous amount of energy to convert the lower energy H2O molecular arrangement into the higher energy HHO molecular arrangement. The nature of physics dictates that every time you process some efficiency losses will occur. If you get HHO from H2O, you will have wasted energy in the process. Just the same as considering hydrogen as a fuel source you must consider the energy cost of manufacuring HHO. Someone somewhere is burning fossil fuels to create the electricity used to convert H2O to HHO. While you may be able to drive an emissions free HHO vehicle, you have still burned fossil fuels to get access to HHO. Effectively all that has occurred is you have moved the pollution source off the highways; the pollution will still occur and the wind will still carry it into the atmosphere. Shane replied on Mon, 2007-07-09 05:54 Permalink HHO True. But once you get enough HHO would you not be able to burn it to produce more of HHO so you could be rid of fossil fuels. Waclo replied on Wed, 2006-08-16 08:28 Permalink hrm....... “Effectively all that has occurred is you have moved the pollution source off the highways; the pollution will still occur and the wind will still carry it into the atmosphere.” This is true if you only have HHO in your gas tank. However they are creating it on demand. In their setup you are not relocating the pollution. Also it CAN increase efficiency but it depends on the situation.