[TrueMetalGeek]

http://www.airfusionsystems.com/

This diagram of "how it works" is too funny.

Read this page of "How it works":
http://www.airfusionsystems.com/How_It_Works_s/46.htm


From what I can tell, the piece of junk hooks up to a vacuum line to the intake manifold.
Using magic it corrects your air to fuel ratio and saves you in fuel. HA HA HA!

[TrueMetalGeek]

Oh wow it gets better!

Check out the testimonials with photos!

http://www.airfusionsystems.com/Testimonials_s/131.htm



They even have it shown installed onto a big rig claiming over 25% fuel savings! HA HA HA!

WOW!

[TrueMetalGeek]

I kinda wonder if the POS bypassing some air that would go through the MAF would cause slightly lean condition. But if it bypassed much air at all, the idle would stay high.

And what is funny is it looks like it is piped AFTER the turbo on some of those Diesel engines.
No wonder the one testimonial for the big rig install says his boost pressure was lowered! It would vent out through that thing! HA HA HA!

I just can't stop laughing at this thing.

I guess a sucker is born every minute, and they know it.

[cgrey8]

At least the electric hydrogen/water chambers actually have a chance of improving combustion by introducing hydrogen and oxygen into the airflow. Under theoretical conditions, hydrogen has been found to improve gasoline combustion. But I seriously doubt the benefits of hydrogen improve combustion is enough to make up for the drag created by the alternator to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water in the 1st place.

Then again, there are videos of people on Youtube with these water boxes that claim they burn 100% water and never fuel up with gasoline anymore. Such a device would be BETTER than a perpetual motion machine.

[TrueMetalGeek]

But I seriously doubt the benefits of hydrogen improve combustion is enough to make up for the drag created by the alternator to produce hydrogen from electrolysis of water in the 1st place.

Then again, there are videos of people on Youtube with these water boxes that claim they burn 100% water and never fuel up with gasoline anymore. Such a device would be BETTER than a perpetual motion machine.

Yeah I went through and watched dozens of those videos about 4 to 5 years ago when they were hyped.
It takes current to make the hydrogen.
And I never could find a car that actually ran on it. Just a bunch of boxes with bubbling water. LOL!

Also the separated hydrogen and oxygen convert back to H2O and I guess that's not good on a stock engine.

[TrueMetalGeek]

Oh, and another scam I saw a year or two ago was the "FUEL DOCTOR 47" or something like that.

It plugged into your cigarette lighter power jack!
They claimed it took the "dirty" 5 VDC power into the unit and it properly regulated it and sent it back into the system so the computer read the sensors more accurately!

All that by being plugged into the 12V power jack! HA HA HA!

http://www.fueldoctorusa.com/products/

HA HA HA! Only $50 and it can be yours!

[cgrey8]

...Also the separated hydrogen and oxygen convert back to H2O and I guess that's not good on a stock engine.

True hydrogen and oxygen do burn back to water. But so does any other fuel. Gasoline burns into CO2 and water assuming a perfect burn. When imperfect, you get emissions...unburned fuel (HC), partially burned fuel (CO), and hot/lean burns (NOx).

I doubt hydrogen burning to water is bad for the engine since, that was going to happen regardless. I associate hydrogen, as a fuel, much the same as CNG. They both require high pressure vessels, regulators to deliver to the engine, and vaporizers or injectors to get into the engine. The difference in them has more to do with how they are attained. Most hydrogen-for-fuel is NOT from water. It's from methane natural gas (CH4). They strip the Hydrogen from the methane and sell the hydrogen. If you are going to do that, you might as well just distribute and sell the natgas as CNG and thus skip the complicated step of busting up the molecule.

[TrueMetalGeek]

...Also the separated hydrogen and oxygen convert back to H2O and I guess that's not good on a stock engine.

True hydrogen and oxygen do burn back to water. But so does any other fuel. Gasoline burns into CO2 and water assuming a perfect burn. When imperfect, you get emissions...unburned fuel (HC), partially burned fuel (CO), and hot/lean burns (NOx).

I doubt hydrogen burning to water is bad for the engine since, that was going to happen regardless. I associate hydrogen, as a fuel, much the same as CNG. They both require high pressure vessels, regulators to deliver to the engine, and vaporizers or injectors to get into the engine. The difference in them has more to do with how they are attained. Most hydrogen-for-fuel is NOT from water. It's from methane natural gas (CH4). They strip the Hydrogen from the methane and sell the hydrogen. If you are going to do that, you might as well just distribute and sell the natgas as CNG and thus skip the complicated step of busting up the molecule.

True that.

Which is why once again the GOVERNMENT trying to mandate Hydrogen cars was a big joke!
Luckily that failed!

[cgrey8]

The green theory is that if we used 100% solar electricity to make hydrogen from water, driving hydrogen-powered cars would be cleaner.

In inconvenient truth is we wouldn't be mass producing hydrogen from solar if we suddenly started distributing and selling hydrogen cars. That's simply too costly as compared to attaining hydrogen from NatGas.

[TrueMetalGeek]

From what I understand, there is really enough (known) oil to power cars for many many years. :-)

And modern cars burn pretty clean.

And since I don't believe in the silliness of global climate change or that CO2 is bad, I'm fine with using oil based fuels. :-)

The funny thing is the quacks who push the very loose "theory" of "Global Warming" are talking about pumping tons of sulfur into the air to dim the sun. Wow would THAT be devastating to crop growth, etc.
Idiots they are. But don't get me going on that stuff. :-p

I'm all for technology that works. I personally think solar and battery technology has been hindered deliberately over the years.

[cgrey8]

I don't have any doubt that there is such a thing as Global Warming or Global Cooling. That's just nature being nature. What I'm not convinced of is man-caused global climate changes. And one reason I don't put much stock into that is because all the radicals that want to preach about the doom we are all bringing on ourselves for burning coal & oil can't answer some simple questions.

What temperature is the "right" temperature for the world? Is it too hot or too cold today?

How do you come up with this target value?

How is it we have proof that the earth, at points in history, were a LOT warmer than today (vegetation fossils found in places like greenland) AND a LOT cooler than today (ice age)? Neither of those historical conditions were caused by man burning coal or oil. So why are current day climate changes so confidently assumed to be caused by man?

The earth is going to do what it's going to do with our without our presence. To think that we somehow cause the earth to make fundamental changes AND that we can "fix" it is a bit arrogant. In my opinion, the whole religion built around man-caused climate change stems from people uncomfortable with the concept that they are not in control of what the earth does. This belief they've bought into that man can fix the earth gives them some comfort that things can be fixed through behavioral change. To me, that's nonsense along with the 1/2 baked notion that CO2 is bad for the environment. There are true pollutants that get into the air and water, and the EPA does have a duty to monitor and regulate industries responsible for the release of those truly toxic materials. But demonizing CO2 so they can control it is just a power grab by the gov't to control energy. Some might call that radical right-wing thinking. I call it obvious.

[tvrfan]

I just happened to see this topic....

There is quite a bit of theory that global warming (and cooling) is actually linked to the sun's output, which varies cyclically over time, but not in a simple way, as there seems to be many cycles which interact. The shortest cycle is the one many are familiar with, the 11 year one where the sun's magnetic field swops over, but there are also (apparently) 50 ish, 200 ish, and 1000 ish year cycles too, and probably more. The Earth got quite cold in the dark ages ( I wonder if that's not just a name?) and later in the 1700s (ish?) but was warmer than today in Roman times (apparently the Romans grew grapes in York UK, which is far too cold today, and over huge time periods Earth has been all over the place climatewise.

Anyway, that seems to make more sense to me that the CO2 stupidity, especially when other gases like SO2 have FAR more impact (so I'm told) ans mankind has pumped quite a lot of sulphurous stuff out as well....

Fuel savers - seen a few over the years, many in the carb days were simply an air leak, which weakened the mixture a bit, so quite a few actually worked, at the risk of overheating the valves of course. There's also the still going "run your leaded car lead free" out here in NZ (and UK) with these things you put in the fuel tank...Their testemonials are good too, but I still don't beleive it.

[decipha]

I'm all for electric cars, if and when the day comes motors can be had at a reasonable price ill be one of the first to hop aboard

Being able to put max tq to the wheels at 1 rpm is incredible, if you've ever driven a hot rod golf cart with quad batteries you know what im talking about