Uh, Dave, hello!

That is what SWRI does; test things that developers and manufacturers bring to them. Guess what the inventor or developer is going to do with the resarch results when they are favorable? USE THEM!

And, I like the fact that the report references results going back more than 30 years! And, yes, it was put online by a company selling a product.

I'm amazed that you continue to respond with reasons why you don't think it will work, but people are BUSY out there experimenting and refining their proceedure.

Is there a HUGE potential for worthless products to try to be sold claiming to be a miracle cure? Sure, that has been going on since the first OPEC price manipulation, er, embargo. Is some of the garbage out there worthless? Sure it is, including for example the people that are proposing to do this in glass jars or in plastic pipes mounted under the hood of a car where the operating temperature can be well over 250 degrees in some areas around the engine.

Personally, I'm glad this information is out there, and more seems to be coming every day, for the same reason I'm glad Thomas Edison didn't give up after trying 3,000 filaments before he found one that would work. Because I LIKE benefitting from his endeavors and discovery and I like not having to try to read in the dark by candlelight.

Please remember science means to know or observe. That dictates there must be trial and error, but when the truth is known, it is verifyable and can be repeated.

Let's enjoy the reading, and hopefully, the perfecting of such a device. When someone credible proves it can be done, I will write a check for it with a smile on my face.

Joe

Not one reference in the entire report is from a disinterested/unbiased party. About 1/2 the report is a cut and pasted "University Report" from a Mr. George Vosper (more on him later). Every citation in it comes from some "Hydrogen Association" that no one knew existed at the time (if it did), or some other equally obscure source..

And it wasn't just put online by the company selling the product. It was put online by the company selling the product, that bought/paid for the study, and almost certainly designed the study. How could anyone possibly read the procedures and results data of this study and believe for one second there was the slightest hint of an unbiased scientific method employed here?


I know what science is.

It goes way beyond that. The Scientific Method employs a number of steps:

Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

If you were to test a device to prove a hypothesis it does something, would you test it in absence of other potential interfering factors, or would you try to shove as many different things in the way of the analyses as you possibly could to confuse the results? Supposing you did choose the second alternative, would you at least describe/define what those extraneous things are?

You can repeat results of simlarly designed biased studies all day (just look at all the cars they have on their web site's title page with similar absurd mileage claims). Just because you repeat results doesn't mean your study proves your hypothesis. It proves you can repeat the study.

I can appreciate that you want this thing to work. I want this thing to work. He!!, I'm the conservationist here! If it worked I'd buy a dozen of them tommorrow.

I can't say for sure that it doesn't work, but you certainly can't say it does with any definitiveness based on this "study" or any other study I've seen. What you have linked here doesn't prove a d@mn thing about the device good or bad, and doesn't countermand any of the valid criticsms I and others have raised (especially on the AACA thread). Meanwhile you've linked a lot of highly suspect behavior and obfuscation on the part of the people marketing this thing.


So would I, presuming a positive long term reliability test (which should've existed by now in the first place if these things were really based on studies done in 1995-1998, as the report states--since then nothing??? ). However based on what I've seen so far nobody with any real credibility would go near these things.

A few other tidbits of interest.

Mr. Vosper, the "former Professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor" who "wrote" about 1/2 of the body of the study cited here, doesn't appear to exist on upon google searches. It may have been a pseudonym, or the title (Professor) itself may be suspect. The name w/ title only appears with reference to the exact same report, posted word for word on several other "hydrogen generator" marketers' sites. No other references to people by that name could be found which were applicable (the rest were hits on geneology results, phone listings, etc.). I'd post links to the other device sites here, but one of them hit my computer with so much malware I had to reboot and start the previous post over (which is why I typing this at 2:00 AM.

The American Hydrogen Assn. existed from 1990 to 1999, and was recently resusitated (online at least) in 2007. There is no indication of any kind that it had a "test lab", or that it was anything more than a failed, loosely affiliated professional assosciation.

There are no references online to a "HYPOTHESIS Conference at the University of Cassino" except in reference to these devices. Ditto for the "9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference". Much like Mr. Vosper these appear to be creations.

As for the "9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference" citation, no explanation is given why the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (presumably NASA's JPL) would even do a study on the "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline." in 1974, or what the results might have been. However that title does appear in other places so the paper at least does exist.

The other citations in the "report" from places that do exist (Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, Zhejiang University, etc.) are all mentioned in passing with no specifics relating to study design or application. They support none of the rest of the "study".

Reatta, watch your mouth! LOL! I will be a Buick owner next week! (hopefully!) (actually that was the sound of a Lincoln hitting a Lucerne! LOL!)

Converting Lincoln owners into Buick-for-life owners, one vehicle at a time!

Congrats; '48 Lincolns are works of art, but you wouldn't want to drive one everyday in a world full of people with no insurance and poor driving skills. Hope you enjoy your new Buick! Which engine are you getting?

Joe

I am getting an 89 Buick Lesabre 2 door. It is my Uncle's and he bought it from the first owner, who was an old lady (seriously!) She came into his Buick dealer and bought a brand new Buick and traded in this old one a couple of years ago. It is immaculate in every sense of the word, if it didnt have 20 year old styling you would think it was new off of the lot. It is a V-6 power everything every option possible, extra gauge package and the leather interior is immaculate, probably if it was entered in a Buick car show, it would take 1st or 2nd in it's class. Are you Buick guys allowing later cars at the shows now? Lincoln people have started doing it. I drove it about 40 miles or so, and it drives like a dream, very comfortable, good pick up and go, and it feels like I am driving my Lincoln Mark V except it is better on gas! I hear that the Lesabres from this era get 25-30 mpg hwy. according to everyone who posted on my question about it on the board.

How did the Germans in the 1930s keep hydrogen from leaking out of their dirigibles? They crossed the Atlantic Ocean using hydrogen to keep them up.

They used an air-tight contiguous coating over a cotton skin:


There's a big difference between something designed to retain hydrogen and something that isn't, like your car's engine.

Yes, as long as the car is 12 years old, it is eligble for 400 point judging. If you would like to see what it takes to be judged and win check out the BCA judging manual at http://www.buickclub.org/BCA%20JUDGING%20MANUAL/BCAjudgingrev2.pdf. Our next National judged meet will be in Colorado Springs in July 2009.

Hey, Wes,

We might as well talk about your '89 Lesabre, since the topic of announcing and informing people about a working hydrogen generator has turned into a high school debate over dualling theories and who knows more about hydrogen than everyone else in the forum due to their superior education and/or degrees!

I always thought that body style on the Lesabres and Park Avenues of that time were very clean, attractive designs. The reverse clamshell hood was very interesting, too. I wish Buick would have promoted (and therefore sold) more of the 2-door T-Types; those were pretty good looking cars.

Sounds like you found a real jewel, Wes!

Joe

Hey guys, the site below may be of interest to you Buick guys. Since Olds has gone down the drain. I wonder what and/or who they'll drop next. Hydrogen Generators, indeed!
More GM Problems!

Wayne

Wayne,

I guess that article and other information that has been passed around in this forum truly indicates what a guessing game the car business has become.

Many foreign brands moved relatively easily into the U.S. with small fuel efficient vehicles because they were using cars already sold or collectively sold in countries with gas prices much, much higher than in the U.S.

Statements by the big 3 indicate they were planning to bring more and more fuel efficient cars to market within the next few years, in anticipation of eventually gas being $3.50 to $4 per gallon. But no one saw gas going over $4 by the middle of 2008!

At this point we can all post messages until our fingers are worn out about where we think gas is going tomorrow, next month, year or decade. But the fact is, it could easily be $3.50 a gallon by this time next year, or it could be $5.50.

As for the discussion on hydrogen generators, that device, if it does work and becomes readily available to everyone, will likely hurt all car companies rather than save them. Why? Because it promises to drastically increase the mileage on the car you already own!

Joe

Yeah, it is a great car, hopefully I will buy it this week, if I have the time, I am moving but, I need a car for the commute (about 40 miles roundtrip) so, that is why I am buying the Buick. It is the old person's model with alot of chrome trim! I love it! I will post some pics when I get it! JD Power named it one of the top cars of 1989 from what I read.

Wes,

You're going to discover what so many of us have enjoyed for some time; the 3.8 is one of THE best engines of all time.

Unfortunately, many of the 'new' V-6 engines GM has released lately are based upon the Northstar V-8 made by Cadillac. They are pretty much a throwaway motor; it breaks with nearly any kind of a serious problem that we would have often fixed ourselves or had done at a shop and you now throw the engine away. The two-piece block makes it very difficult to do major rebuilds on. And, the engines, even with very good care, are only good for about 150K before they have big problems.

So, enjoy 'Old School' for years to come. You'll be getting 30 MPG on the freeway in an inexpensive, easy to work on comfortable car!

Joe

Amen! See, my commute is about 40 roundtrip, so, a tank should last me a week and a half (5 day weeks)! Insurance will be low! registration will be low! And I will be a Buickman! And it is a comfortable car! For a 6'2'' guy like me, that is a blessing! Since the only comfortable car that I have is the MKV and it gets about 7-11 per gallon!

I could drive the Mustang V-6 to school because it gets good gas but, the insurance for full coverage is outrageous! It is like $800 bucks for 6 months for full coverage at 8-10 grand! and that is on my dad's policy! But, I want to keep my classic car insurance! So, upfront, I will be saving about $500. Wheras the Buick can be insured with Liability only (since it is a cheap car) for around $300 bucks! for 6 months! + I get the luxury and amenities that I love!

Here is the ad for it.... Buy now before all the water is gone...

http://media.putfile.com/Car-Hydrogen---Water-For-Fuel-Alternative

My '89 Buick gets 28-30 hwy. and 22-25 combined+ my insurance through AAA is low, and my reg is low. I think I will stick with the trusty internal combustion engine!

I thought I would give you guys an update on this.

Steve says he hasn't found a hydrogen generator that lasts longer than 5-6 weeks. They all sludge up in the bottom of the water tank due to the minerals in the water. Problem is, there isn't an easy or convenient way to clean out the tanks. And, he has bought and tested all of the hydrogen generators sold on the internet.

So, he has designed one that can be easily taken apart and cleaned when needed. Once that is possible, he thinks it will be practical for individual owners to have it installed AND keep it working.

Will keep you posted.....

Joe

Tell him to use distilled water. There are no minerals in distilled water to gunk up.

But you need some sort of a mineral (baking Soda, salt) for the electrolisis process to work!

Dandy Dave!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19

Why even bother with hydrogen...here is the future????

True... but once you add a small amount of mineral of your choice to the generator, it does not go anywhere. Just the water does. So when you keep topping up with distilled water, it mixes with the minerals left in the water and you are OK. It is when you keep adding tap water that you keep increasing the mineral content of the hydrogen generator and it gunks up the system.