I was thinking that you have to add in energy from somewhere, besides just
what comes from the gaoline....
which means........
a pedal or crank driven alternator your passnegers spin while the ride,
or.............yes.........solor panels !
or charge up a dedicated set of power supply batteries from your home
current or your home solar panel array.
but basically........to have it 'really work'...........gotta add in energy
from somewhere.

hey I got it !  ......have a wind-driven generator on the car ....
the you take that power generated that way, and use that to break the water
down .

yeah .......right !
scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "craig cowan" <phishman068@GMAIL.COM>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Water 4 Gas. com Does it work? Has Anyone Tried it? Know of It?

> Well i'm in the process of designing and gathering parts for the
> experiemental stages of what i hope to eventually be a "hybrid" HHO
> vanagon
> but will work in 3 main steps:
> 1. Design and proof of concept
> 2. Prototype HHO powered lawn tractor
> 3. "production' vanagon system.
>
> I've begun the gathering of the parts, and have the design well refined. I
> have conducted some proof of concept experiments with great success, and
> have learned alot about the system. I see the flaw that everyone else does
> and realise that this closed system cannot possibly generate energy
> without
> defying the laws of physics. (Generate meaning create new). Well the
> argument that the people on the side of HHO give is that "plenty of people
> have done this, and with great success". Personally, i can't see how. It
> still defys physics in that in the very least, you'd have to recharge your
> battery from time to time (But is that so bad?).
> There is a solution though, one that i've never heard of touched on thus
> far. It's simple really......make the closed system open.
> My solution, a solar panel.
>
> Now the concept works, almost entirely without significant problems. Our
> HHO
> generator does not need to be 100% efficient, we can realize that engines
> aren't even close to 100% efficient anyway, and combat our losses by
> ADDING
> ENERGY, a renewable "free" source.....the sun. I fail to see drawbacks
> with
> the HHO idea from anything but a design and safety standpoint with that
> solution stated.
>
> The O2 sensor is not much of a hinderence if you build the right
> circuitry......
> Heck in a very very advanced HHO system, it would be your biggest assett
> (theoretically adjusting automatically on the fly the Fuel air ratio as it
> should, along with the fuel/air to HHO ratio (trying to use as much HHO as
> possible)).
>
> And no, i'm not an engineer. Just someone with to much time and
> 'impractical
> knowledge' for my own good.
>
> -Craig
> '85GL (Soon to read:    '85GL-H)
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:56 PM, David Beierl <dbeierl@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
>> At 06:38 PM 7/13/2008, miguel pacheco wrote:
>>
>>> Uhm, read on, the O2 thing is no longer an issue..............
>>> Possible or not, it looks like a fun project.
>>>
>>
>> I've got one question, in two* parts.
>>
>> A: How much energy does it take to electrolyze the water to H and O?
>> B: How much energy do you get back by burning the stuff?  Is it as
>> much as you spent to make it?  Hint: No, it isn't.
>> C: What's the efficiency of the gasoline --> mechanical -->
>> electrical cycle that generates the current to electrolyze the
>> water?  Guessing 30% in the engine times 80% in the alternator... :-(
>> D: Where does the energy come from to do this?  Hint:  The Gasoline.
>>
>> *Our THREE main weapons are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency and
>> fanatical devotion to the Pope!
>>
>> TANSTAAFL.  The three laws of thermodynamics say you can't win, you
>> can't break even, and you can't get out of the game.  There's no
>> question that you suffer a net loss of energy by hydrolyzing water
>> and then burning the products, made worse by the various
>> inefficiencies attendant on generating the electricity.  So *IF* this
>> method works at all, it has to be by somehow increasing the
>> efficiency of the Otto engine cycle by a considerable amount, i.e.
>> getting considerably more mechanical output from somewhat less
>> thermal input.  AFAIK the only remaining area for large improvements
>> in recovery of mechanical effort from the thermal cycle involve
>> raising the operating temperature of the engine which is currently
>> constrained by materials (Smokey Yunick once hoped, maybe still does,
>> to build a ceramic engine that would run continuously red-hot for
>> just this reason).
>>
>> So what am I missing?  Help me out here...
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Beierl - Providence RI USA --
>> http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
>> '84 Westy "Dutiful Passage," '85 GL "Poor Relation"
>>