FTC cracks down on Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell scam
Turn any vehicle into a hybrid with one quick and (relatively... it costs over a grand) inexpensive device? Fuel efficiency increases of 50 percent or more? Count us in! Well, maybe not. The Federal Trade Commission has taken legal action against Dutchman Enterprises LLC and United Community Services of America Inc., makers of the Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell. This product claims to use "water gas" and "longstanding, proven technologies" to offer "incredible savings" and also promises "less dependence on foreign oil."Too bad it doesn't work. In fact, the FTC's documents claim that there's a net loss of energy when the device is in use. The technology behind these claims is well known, and it supposedly involves extracting hydrogen from distilled water using electricity, among other things. Unfortunately, the laws of physics get in the way, and the FTC, looking to protect consumers, has taken issue with these claims, guarantees and even the name of the product, since it's not really a hydrogen fuel cell at all. Somehow, we seriously doubt that this is the last we'll hear of such products.
[Source: The Press of Atlantic City]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
kmn1 3:46PM (2/09/2009)
This is very interesting. I had no idea this was going on!
Reply
MT 4:03PM (2/09/2009)
Wait for it...
Reply
Chris M 6:38PM (2/09/2009)
No doubt we'll be hearing from the "HHO" supporters soon, with their shills trumpeting wild testimonials of unbelievable improvements in fuel economy, and muttterings about conspiracies to supress this "wonderful technology". Of course, "HHO" isn't as great as they claim, and the conspiracy is completely imaginary.
We'll also hear from those who were duped by the Stan Meyer scam, who really believe they can run a car on nothing but water. Strange how they can be taken in by a slick talking con, but refuse to believe scientists who have patiently studied the subject and determined it can't possibly work. Some people would rather believe a pretty seductive lie than the ugly truth.
Of course, Gorr will have to post another rambling incoherent and off-the-wall post, should be good for a few chuckles.
TX CHL Instructor 4:05PM (2/09/2009)
"Unfortunately, the laws of physics get in the way, "
True of any use of hydrogen as a fuel.
Reply
slackerboy 2:45PM (4/27/2009)
The Hydro-Assist Fuel Cell does work. i have one installed in my vehicle. I have gone from getting 400 kms/tank of fuel to just over 800kms/tank of fuel. You talk about horsepower, well i can tell you that there is more horsepower now than when i initially rebuilt my engine. Of course with more horsepower you get more torque. One thing to remember is that all domestic vehicles are built to meet emission standards versus, not for economy. the biggest hint that i can give to you about the burn in the cylinders is, when you take a small amount of vaporized fuel, that has been pre-conditioned before getting to the fuel rails, and also being enhanced with H2 and O2 through the air stream, changes the burn envelope within the cylinders and creates far more power, than current vehicle settings, old or new. The reason is, the car manufacturers dump in extra un-vaporized, so that the unburned fuel from the chamber, goes down the exhaust to the post catalytic converter. the catalytic converter, that is standard on all vehicles, requires lots of oxygen at the converter to oxidize all of the unburnt fuel and green house gases. That is why there are O2 sensors on vehicles, the more unburnt fuel coming down to the converter, produces alot of oxygen to help the cat converter.
My Uncle has been a mechanic for the last 25 years. Always upgrading his training to stay up to date. The other day i went to visit him at his shop. Asked him to come out and have a look at something on my truck. I had my Snap on scanner attached to my truck. I asked him to specifically to look at the long term fuel trims and the short term. He was amazed. He asked how can this truck run. I responded, this truck runs better than it ever has and look at the trip odometer and fuel gauge. The odometer was reading 143 kms and the fuel gauge still hadn't come off of full. He said that he has never seen a vehicle run with the fuel trims ownly showing 2.6%.
Ask any mechanic what the norms are for your vehicle or for a 1996 Dodge Ram 1500 4X4 ext. cab 318 magnum and ask if it is possible. Maybe the open minded mechanic would say yes but most would say no.
here is the fact. i am getting 100% better fuel economy, more horsepower and torque. what is coming out the tailpipe is next to zero for emissions.
I will be able to confirm the next to zero emissions within the next week cause i am sending the truck in to have the exhaust gases analysed.
until you all try this add on enjoy the high gas prices and low km's
Chris M 6:25PM (2/09/2009)
The FCC is quite right, there is a net loss of energy, but these devices might reduce fuel consumption slightly. The bulky "browns gas" produced (2 parts H2, 1 part O2) displaces some of the intake air. Since the volume of O2 in the "browns gas" is used up by the burning H2 and there is less atmospheric O2 going in, that means less O2 to burn the petrol or diesel fuel, so it must be adjusted to inject less fuel. Result, less fuel used.
But since the "browns gas" carries much less energy than the air/fuel mix it displaces, there is less energy, less power, and reduced performance.
End result, slightly improved fuel economy at the cost of reduced power and performance. It would be cheaper to just go light on the accelerator, and more efficient to use a smaller engine.
Reply
Zeph 7:15PM (2/09/2009)
Ramble on about conspiracy theorists all you want, but, now in the information age, I've seen enough material on the subject to realise that water as fuel is a pratical proposition and entirely possible. I've also realised that some of the supposed laws of physics are actually laws of physicists.
There are vested energy interests on this planet, they are obvious, but part of a more integrated structure than most people think. Than the media tells most people to think. This control structure has tentacles in the academic world, which results in two knowledge bases, one for popular consumption, one for the powerstructure.
Yes, it's conspiracy theory. But it's also true...
But for those of you than want to ignore water as fuel, I have a still challenging proposition: consider ethanol. Why don't we use locally produced ethanol, which could revitalise family farming, using a variety of possible crops (and not corn as used now, which is a con)? Why not, when it is a higher intensity energy source than fossil fuels and clean and renewable? Why not, when internal combustion engines last much longer (two to three times at least) and it's very low emissions compared to gasoline or diesel? Why don't we use ethanol 100 instead? You see, even with proved, tried and tested, technology, with history, there is suppression. Why is it so hard to see that there are even further possibilities?
Because you've been taught otherwise. But as someone once said, sometimes you realise that the things you have been taught are just the things you think you know, reality can be something else.
Wake up folks.
Reply
Chris M 10:01PM (2/09/2009)
Not everything you read on the internet is true, even you should understand that. If there was a "conspiracy" to supress "water cars", it certainly hasn't supressed the water-heads from posting, you've managed to find lots of posts without trouble, the information is out there and anyone can try it out for themselves. No, the real reason why we don't see fleets of water-cars driving around is that it doesn't work, the few that claimed success have turned out to be slick talking scammers. The most infamous of the water-car promoters, Stan Meyers, was convicted of fraud. Seems he took money for "dealerships" and payments for his devices, but never delivered, and his "water-car" ran on hidden fuel, the electrolysis cell bubbling merrily away was just for show.
Those "laws of physics" are the way the universe works, physicists discovered what they were but didn't make them, they don't have that kind of power.
What evidence is there for a special "knowlege base" for the "powerstructure"? Are you going to claim that the lack of evidence is proof of the cover-up? But you are right in a way, there are two "knowlege bases" - one based on facts and reality, the other based on imagination, fiction, tall tales and lies.
There was no conspiracy to cover up ethanol. Henry Ford experimented with it, and it did make a good fuel, but back then gasoline was cheaper so that's what his cars used. None of that information was hidden or covered up, and when fuel prices went up there was a big push for ethanol. It just takes time to ramp up production, and takes even longer to replace all the older petrol only vehicles on the road.
"Sometimes you realise that the things you have been taught are just the things you think you know, reality can be something else." So, who taught you all that nonsense about water car conspiracies?
Silly Pickle 2:22PM (2/10/2009)
...and I've got a Tornado to sell you too. 25 mpg and 100 h.p. improvement and only $29.95! Order yours today!! I'll even throw in a glass of sugar water to sweeten the deal.
stevefazek 7:18PM (2/09/2009)
since these nut jobs arnt posting yet ill do it.
Its a vast international conspiracy to oppress people from knowing the truth. Yes Newton was in on this conspiracy when he came up with modern physics.
Reply
jpm 8:35PM (2/09/2009)
Looks like Gorr just lost his job.
Reply
Chris M 8:57PM (2/09/2009)
Nah, Gorr is just on vacation. I must admit, Zeph shows real promise, all he needs is a few more mis-spellings and a rambling "enemy list" or two and he'd be a perfect Gorr substitute.
Zeph 9:27PM (2/09/2009)
Why be petty and focus on spelling? Why not focus on the ethanol question, for example?
I'm going to repeat myself for good measure: Wake up. This world is rife with lies and manipulations, they happen at all levels of society, and it's foolish for anyone, now, in the information age, to not properly research both sides of a debate.
I once was like most of the guys posting in this thread, believing the world view and the technological profile that was presented to me by mass media. I grew out of it. If you guys want to make a positive impact in this world you should grow out of it too. But that choice is yours, I can't impose it and probably would not if I could.
I will add one thing though, on topic with the original ABG article: sure, the FTC could be going after snake oil salesmen, while someone else buys the patents for the legitimate stuff and shelves them. This is not a black and white world, just because someone talks about brown's gas dosen't mean he can actually deliver product, and could in fact be a con artist, those are a dime a dozen. I have however seen enough of water power system over the years to realise there is something there. I mean, it's hydrogen and oxygen, hardly inerte substances. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for all the trees I guess.
I'll let you comment on my spelling now, as I honestly don't bother with a checker and touch type, while talking in a second language. So knock yourselves out :)
Reply
Chris M 10:45PM (2/09/2009)
Sure I know the world is rife with lies and manipulations. There are plenty of scams out there of various types, but one thing they have in common is they are run by smooth talking scammers that exude "honesty". Lets face it, a scam wouldn't work if it was run by someone who sounded dishonest, to fool people requires the illusion of forthright honesty.
It's funny, we both see the same evidence, but where you see a beautiful dreamy solution to all problems being supressed by an evil conspiracy, I see an attempt by slick talking scammers to defraud the gullible being rightfully opposed by the legal system. Information is just too readily available to support the notion of a conspiracy. It is reality, not any shadowy "conspiracy", that keeps "water cars" from coming to market, they just don't work.
SteveCT 9:58PM (2/09/2009)
He's no Gorr, but he promises to be just as frustrating to try to argue with. I really don't know why I bother.
Zeph: If you're going to dismiss the laws of physics (or more specifically, the laws of thermodynamics), which are obeyed by everything from waterfalls to living organisms, no one is going to want to argue with you. You say you have seen that running a car on water can work. As they say in videogames, screenshot or it didn't happen--that is, show me what you're talking about. Or are you afraid the big scary conspiracy thugs with come and kill you in your sleep if you do?
The fact is, water contains less energy than the hydrogen you can get out of it. Therefore, to get hydrogen, you must invest energy, some of which will inevitably be lost to entropy, or randomness (in this case, heating the water and/or its container). Your body already knows this, which is why you need to eat food in addition to drinking water. After obtaining hydrogen, one can burn, or oxidize, that hydrogen to extract energy. Unfortunately, a lot of the energy extracted will again be lost to entropy (in this case, heating up the engine parts), resulting in another net loss. After that, what you're left with is water and a lot less energy than you had to put in. There is no free lunch, and a water-powered car amounts to a perpetual motion machine.
Not that I expect you to believe me, because I'm studying science at a university, so surely I'm already in on the conspiracy, right?
Reply
jharlan 10:55PM (2/09/2009)
I learned long ago that the burning (oxidation) of hydrogen gas is exothermic, in other words the products of the reaction are water and energy as heat. The reaction can be reversed, by introducing great quantities of energy to split the water back into it's components H2 and O2 gases. I thought (and I could be wrong) it takes as much energy to get the hydrogen back out of the water as the reaction yields when burning hydrogen. What's the point? Unless you believe in perpetual motion machines this doesn't make sense to me. Bear in mind I took chemistry in the 60s and I cerainly don't know everything about it. Maybe there is some magic catalyst you can use to split water.
Reply
vilo 1:02AM (2/10/2009)
Zeph, do not pay any attention to bunch of thermodynamics understanding all universe knowing spell checking ignorants. Especially Chris M. This is my first post and I don't like you already. The way you write your posts is to cover all of your bases so anyone even trying to oppose your views should be perceived as idiot before he even starts. You funneled something into your head during your school years and you think you know it all. No opening for other possibilities.
Try reading some Tom Bearden:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:Problem_With_Science:Our_Understanding_of_Thermodynamics
http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/leyton.htm
and http://peswiki.com in general is a great source of alternative views
Reply
Zeph 6:41AM (2/10/2009)
A reason why I "dismiss" scientific laws: It's not that they are not valid in circumstance, that much is experimentally reproduceable, so has to be accepted. However, if you scale out of the experiment and consider the whole of physics you have to see the universe as a fractal phenomenon that functions at scales and with phase changes. Interdisciplinary science shows us this, and a reference is Chaos, a book written by James Gleik. This is relevant because it teaches you that you can define a law for the scale of the phenomenon you're observing, but it is not universal. If you zoom in or out sooner or later the universe changes the rulebook. This can be frustrating for left brain science, but it opens the doors for right brain creative approaches.
If you did not understand what I just typed I suggest you read the book I mentioned and think about it for a long time. I know I did. But at the end of the process the ivory towers of academic science collapsed at freefall speed, hitting the ground in about 7-9 seconds.
Chris-M: We both see the same thing, but you're more selective on your interpretation. I see the same lies and manipulations about water as fuel, but I also see the scientific possibility of vibrating the molecule with relatively low power electric pulses till it breaks the bonds and seperates, this because there is not a set in stone theory of everything in physics, if anything once they hit quanta it got more complicated. So while I see the false stuff I also see the possibility for the real stuff, which is something you seem to want to block out.
About linking what I'm talking about, well, there is plenty of stuff out there, but I'm just giving an opinion and am not a new energy scholar. However, I'll link one video that, while not directly about water as fuel, did give me a lot of food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qM325S_3TI
Reply
locus 8:43AM (2/10/2009)
Yup, i distincly remember that one time, when i was on acid i got my zippo out ans lit water. worked well, then,
Shame it doesn't when you're not trippin'...
(on a semi related side note)
Have you ever seen those 'dohickers' you put in you intake pipe just behind the filter that "causes the air to spin"
all the way thru the intake, and then thru the injectores to spin the air in the chamber???
Yeah, that'll work too, maybe that and HydroAssist will do wonders...
/me goes to eBay
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 9:57AM (2/10/2009)
Hydrogen posts make my day, even without Gorr!
Remember: the easiest way to evaluate a magical, mystical black box is to ignore the box and simply observe what goes in and what comes out. In this case measure the energy input to the device and measure the energy out.
Of course, you really don't have to do that. A simple estimation blows Hydro Assist right out of the water, laws of physicists notwithstanding. ;)
Reply