• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech

Water 4 Gas - does this work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dubl10
  • Start date Start date Jul 9, 2008
D

Dubl10

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
49
0
0
Jul 9, 2008
#1
  • Jul 9, 2008
  • #1
whats up all,

does anybody know if this thing works or not??? anybody done this???

Run Your Car on Water

other links:

Water Car Run on WATER+Fuel. Hydrogen Save Gas=FREE ENERGY!
Sick of High Gas Prices? Use water as a fuel !!!


someone who states the cons to it, is this true?

Is It Possible to Run Your Car on Water? - CNET Car Tech Forums

I would to add this to my stang and save about $100 on gas.
 

ct07gt

Member
Feb 14, 2008
377
0
16
Jul 9, 2008
#2
  • Jul 9, 2008
  • #2
Don't you think that everyone would use it if it worked? I don't think the Navy would waste its time putting nuclear reactors in submarines and carriers if you could just run an engine on water.
 

klaw

Member
Oct 11, 2007
343
0
16
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jul 9, 2008
#3
  • Jul 9, 2008
  • #3
Dubl10 said:
whats up all,

does anybody know if this thing works or not??? anybody done this???

Run Your Car on Water

other links:

Water Car Run on WATER+Fuel. Hydrogen Save Gas=FREE ENERGY!
Sick of High Gas Prices? Use water as a fuel !!!


someone who states the cons to it, is this true?

Is It Possible to Run Your Car on Water? - CNET Car Tech Forums

I would to add this to my stang and save about $100 on gas.
Click to expand...

For $50 I'll tell you how it works. You'll still save $50 so you'll still be ahead. I promise to give you the $50 back if it doesn't work.
 

walter

Founding Member
Aug 13, 1998
1,054
0
46
Houston TX
Jul 9, 2008
#4
  • Jul 9, 2008
  • #4
I would really like to know how one quart of water is able to yield 1800 gallons of HHO Gas. Somehow that just doesn't add up especially when physics tell you that matter in a reaction balances and is quantifiable.

That said I'm always a little leery when I see a chick in a miniskirt telling me about the advantages of this and that. That's the typical distraction technique.

Now I'd like to know what THIS guy is doing...

http://www.wmur.com/video/16766229/index.html
 
0

08silvergt

New Member
Jul 9, 2008
1
0
0
Jul 9, 2008
#5
  • Jul 9, 2008
  • #5
PSYKOSTEVO was supposed to be installing one in his car based on this thread. Maybe he will chime in and give us an update on if it works.
 
D

Dubl10

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
49
0
0
Jul 11, 2008
#6
  • Jul 11, 2008
  • #6
ct07gt said:
Don't you think that everyone would use it if it worked? I don't think the Navy would waste its time putting nuclear reactors in submarines and carriers if you could just run an engine on water.
Click to expand...

no i don't.

our gov't, the democrats and republicans have KEPT us DEPENDENT on oil for no reason at all. We are a 98% oil based economy, they say were dependent on it, i don't believe that ****.

watch this....

whats the answer to our 98% oil based economy?

There are several answers, but the Republicans and democrats have empowered the oil companies and conspired to destroy any successful inroads from the alternatives ...

YouTube - Who Killed the Electric Car? (Part 5 of 11)

also, get this. I know how to cure cancer without chemo, radiation and surgery.

guess what though, the DRUG companies, DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT. the drugs companies use the mainstream, tv, radio, newspapers, magazines - TO SHOVE down the american peoples throats and brainwash everyone into thinking the only option to curing cancer is chemo, radiation and surgery. it's so mainstream, it's sickening.

so yeah, i can believe this can easily be HUSHED up, just like a lot of other crap in this country.
 

ct07gt

Member
Feb 14, 2008
377
0
16
Jul 11, 2008
#7
  • Jul 11, 2008
  • #7
Whatever you say bud, but theres one problem, the reactors in submarines and carriers have nothing to do with oil, they tend to run much better on uranium. Keep us posted on your cancer cure and how to run everything on water.
 
D

Dubl10

New Member
Apr 1, 2005
49
0
0
Jul 14, 2008
#8
  • Jul 14, 2008
  • #8
ct07gt said:
Whatever you say bud, but theres one problem, the reactors in submarines and carriers have nothing to do with oil, they tend to run much better on uranium. Keep us posted on your cancer cure and how to run everything on water.
Click to expand...

thats nice, but what does that reply have to do with anything?
 

2BADSTANGS

Member
Jun 19, 2008
385
1
18
Colorado
Jul 14, 2008
#9
  • Jul 14, 2008
  • #9
In theory it can work, however I have yet to see a working prototype in person...
 

LV51FER

New Member
Oct 25, 2005
318
0
0
Caerphilly, Wales, UK
Jul 15, 2008
#10
  • Jul 15, 2008
  • #10
A scientist opined that it takes more energy to split the water molecule into it's component parts than you could ever hope to gain.

I have a few containers of snake oil you can add to your tank though, that really does work.

As for oil dependency, it's easy enough to tax water too. Look at all the dumbasses who buy it in bottles.
 
B

blbrchnk

New Member
Oct 16, 2006
268
0
0
Bridgeport, WV
Jul 15, 2008
#11
  • Jul 15, 2008
  • #11
I have this bridge I would like to sell you...
 

Mike97gt

it doe snot
Founding Member
Jan 26, 1999
10,633
7
89
the people's republic of massachusetts
Jul 17, 2008
#12
  • Jul 17, 2008
  • #12
Dubl10 said:
no i don't.

our gov't, the democrats and republicans have KEPT us DEPENDENT on oil for no reason at all. We are a 98% oil based economy, they say were dependent on it, i don't believe that ****.

watch this....

whats the answer to our 98% oil based economy?

There are several answers, but the Republicans and democrats have empowered the oil companies and conspired to destroy any successful inroads from the alternatives ...

YouTube - Who Killed the Electric Car? (Part 5 of 11)

also, get this. I know how to cure cancer without chemo, radiation and surgery.

guess what though, the DRUG companies, DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT IT. the drugs companies use the mainstream, tv, radio, newspapers, magazines - TO SHOVE down the american peoples throats and brainwash everyone into thinking the only option to curing cancer is chemo, radiation and surgery. it's so mainstream, it's sickening.

so yeah, i can believe this can easily be HUSHED up, just like a lot of other crap in this country.
Click to expand...

We need a tin hat smiley

BTW I have always had one big problem with that who killed the electric car stuff.. and that problem is

There is pleanty of money to be made in electricity production to charge the electric cars.. The electric utility not only uses fossil fuels to produce electricity but they also have as much lobby power as oil interests so why are they not able to get favorable treatment from the government.

I will agree the government allows some really shady and downright evil **** to go on in the name of profits and campaign dollars but I don't think this is one of them.
 

Maza4ever14

New Member
Apr 27, 2005
187
0
0
Bay Area, CA
Jul 17, 2008
#13
  • Jul 17, 2008
  • #13
dope, just read an article in the paper about this. They actually sell you a book on how to mack this "machine"/contraption.

Here is the link:

Queen: Water to improve gas mileage sounds too goo to be true - ContraCostaTimes.com
 

GreyDiesel

New Member
Jul 26, 2008
167
1
0
Denver, CO
Jul 29, 2008
#14
  • Jul 29, 2008
  • #14
Hey, great question, it is always better to ask then to just assume everything is a scam. Though, admittitatly, if I were trying to scam people, I would design a website exactly like that of Water For Gas. It reeks of scam.

However, it seems like the same concept behind this 400 HP 40MPG concept.

Ronn Motors' Scorpion: 450 horses, 40 miles to the gallon - Autoblog

Which could also be a scam.

Here is what your physics professor will tell you. No process is 100% efficient, and energy cannot be created from nothing. We get energy to drive our mustangs from sunshine that rained down on algae millions of years ago (gasoline). This contraption, takes energy from the gasoline, and uses it to split water. But you loose a great deal of energy in the process. The energy is in the gasoline, it is blown up in the engine at about 40% efficiency, then converted into electricity by your alternator at about 80% efficiency, then used to split water at about 80% efficiency (generous maybe), then that HHO gas is transported back into your engine and converted back to water at about 40% efficiency. So you can see, round the whole process, you are loosing energy, and I would guess actually getting worse gas mileage which would be noticed as a strain on the alternator, sort of like running the AC with the windows down. Now... the question is, is your physics professor right? They have been wrong before. There could be something going on here that is not fully understood. I dont know, but it would be fun to try the thing, and verify our current understanding or call it into question.
 

GreyDiesel

New Member
Jul 26, 2008
167
1
0
Denver, CO
Jul 29, 2008
#15
  • Jul 29, 2008
  • #15
"Our technical staff believes that it's really not worth commenting on at all from a scientific point of view," he said. "We quite frankly don't even want to give it any credence or credibility by commenting on it publicly."

This is a quote from the Contra Costa Times article. This kind of sentimant really urks me. If you understand physics and or chemistry, you would not make such ridiculous comments. How long did it take me to discuss the issue properly and fully discount the idea? 2 minutes? This is such a cop out by folks who got Cs all through college and finally landed a job because their cousin new a guy, and now they hope to coast through life without making any waves. Technical staff.. now THAT is a scam.

Sorry for the rant, but this is a major pet peeve of mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Help Figuring Motor Choice(Possible future turbo)?
  • jaygee15
  • Dec 14, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
13
Views
479
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 3, 2026
Jarhead67
J
0
V6 to V8 Swap info
  • 02_2v_Curtis
  • Jan 11, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
584
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jan 11, 2026
02_2v_Curtis
0
Place to Avoid: Jamison Auto Group in Gulfport, MS
  • D Durden
  • Oct 20, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
45
Views
2K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 4, 2026
nickyb
T
  • Locked
1990 2.3L automatic - real bad engine sputtering
  • the_steve_randolph
  • Jun 13, 2024
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 14, 2024
the_steve_randolph
T
SURGING IDLE / NO IDLE CHECKLIST FOR 1999–2004 MUSTANG GT (4.6L 2V) - Work In Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Aug 30, 2025
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
812
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Aug 30, 2025
Noobz347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2005 - 2009 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?