Pre-Ignition Catalytic Converter: Over 100% increased MPG

[A4 KiDD 810]

A family member stumbled upon this, its already been on major media news channels i guess just to show the guy who invented it. I guess the only reason they wont put it on mass-production cars is that the big oil guys wont make as many billions as they do now. Well anyway thats just my opinion. Any1 heard of this? What do you guys think ? It looks pretty cool

www.picctv.com

[koolade9]

I hope people aren't buying these things...

Engineers for deisel and petrol engines have spent millions upon millions of dollars developing their fuel systems and tuning software to meet tier 4 emmission standards amongst other things...I've worked on these projects... The people out there making things more efficient, are already doing everything they can...and going to some extremes at that...

If the stuff on that website existed, they wouldn't be hawking it on on the internet, they'd open up shop and be a freaking bazillionaire...

but what's crazy is people out there are actually falling for it...

[evola4]

I put in a request for a quote. It would be cool if this worked with our already tuned cars.

[Mikef5000]

Combine that PICC with this kit http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/ and then fill your tank with water and Acetone http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/, and add a couple tornados to your intake system (post PICC of course) http://www.tornadoair.com/ and you'll never need to fill up again! But it'll still be slow, so you may want to add a couple superchargers http://www.electricsupercharger.com/


That's the ticket.

[A4 KiDD 810]

I knew people were gonna be crying scam from the very beggining but the science seems to be there backing it up.

[koolade9]

I knew people were gonna be crying scam from the very beggining but the science seems to be there backing it up.

we're not flaming you... just the folks out there doing this... but the fact of the matter is...the science isn't there...hence the flaming

[A4 KiDD 810]

we're not flaming you... just the folks out there doing this... but the fact of the matter is...the science isn't there...hence the flaming

I know, well in the newspaper article i read, it said this invention was on all the major networks like fox, abc, etc. i'm gonna try to youtube it. Its even a publicly traded company in Canada, the stock symbol is HYHY. Well, if it turns out not to be real, I'm just tryin to stay open minded, im not that gullible, i'm trying to view all the facts from both sides.

[auggy]

I know, well in the newspaper article i read, it said this invention was on all the major networks like fox, abc, etc. i'm gonna try to youtube it. Its even a publicly traded company in Canada, the stock symbol is HYHY.

The fact that something was on the news does not make it a fact (or in this case, a legitimate product).


And as for the idea that the product is being kept from mass-production by big oil companies - American car companies need any help they can get right now. If something really existed that they could simply put into cars to increase gas milage like this, they would. Just think of how many more cars they would sell if people could actually afford gas for them.

[brewmastr]

notice under the mechanics list there are no names associated, its all false thats why.

[A4 KiDD 810]

OK this is debunked, sorry to pollute the forums.

[CapstoneJHS]

but the science seems to be there backing it up.

I see no science backing it up...just advertising.

[manhertm]

OK this is debunked, sorry to pollute the forums.

Don't get your hopes down. While the PICC is probably vaporware the"HAFC" is the same HHO generator, I spoke of and will be getting in the future. As soon as I get my clutch, it will be order. The webpage is kinda deceptive because they start talking about that PICC only to sell you the so call "HAFC". Here's a link to my thread http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...light=methanol

[mxrz]

What a joke. Cracking the gas to break down molecules, with magnets and electricity? That's the equivalent of banging an anvil with a hammer, and calling it nuclear fission. It's science alright... Science fiction!

[mxrz]

Don't get your hopes down.

Why? None of this stuff works... It's all theoretical, and modern technology is years away from practical application. Your HHO generator requires more energy than it creates. Your car's battery is far from being up to the task.

[manhertm]

The HHO generator(HAFC) is not theortical. It works, go to Youtube and type in HHO generator

[manhertm]

Here's a good vid of a set-up http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV6iD...elfromh2o.com/
They have a 1969 Chevy in-line 6 cylinder pickup.

First they run the thing on GAS....using 8 oz of gas plumbed into the carb. At idle, it lasted 2 min. It had normal, blck soot emmisions.

Then, they refilled the cup...8 Oz of GAS...and turned on the HHO gen. It cut the consumpiton by 1/2...that same cup lasted twice as long and had almost no visable emmissions. The Amps hardly changed as well.

[T0M3K]

The problem with combustion engines that they're NOT efficient, and so far nobody could really do much about that. While others like fuel-cells and H20 generators are much more efficient they still to get wide adoption. Till then we will fill for $5/gallon and cry about ours 15mpg in the city (when not in traffic). None of that stuff really works. Can't beat physics.

[mxrz]

Can't beat physics.

This is chemistry, not physics.

[T0M3K]

This is chemistry, not physics.

I always thought Engine efficiency was mostly physics problem that involves chemistry. But I could be mistaken, I had this topic covered in both classes.

[LampyB]

big media news makes a ton of money talking about fads. anything that claims it increases MPG is immensely popular right now, thus a fad. it isn't real, and there are thousands of these products out there that don't do sh*t...why should this one?

[fbottone]

The HHO generator(HAFC) is not theortical. It works, go to Youtube and type in HHO generator

Youtube says you can cook popcorn with your cell phone too, see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj6SZgbBuSQ
I know it sucks, but you can't believe everything you see anymore.

[manhertm]

Youtube says you can cook popcorn with your cell phone too, see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj6SZgbBuSQ
I know it sucks, but you can't believe everything you see anymore.

Dude, don't be cynical, there are hundreds of videos of people doing this, that's was just one.

[skeeball]

I think I'm going to start a business selling Brown's Gas contraptions. Even if I have to spend half the profits on lawyers, I think it will still be worth it.

[A4 KiDD 810]

I think I'm going to start a business selling Brown's Gas contraptions. Even if I have to spend half the profits on lawyers, I think it will still be worth it.

lmfao

[mxrz]

The HHO generator(HAFC) is not theoretical. It works, go to Youtube and type in HHO generator

Nope, we clearly have a different definition of "it works". Your gas burning engine is inefficient (principles of internal combustion engines) and your HHO generator is inefficient (principles of water electrolysis). Inefficient + inefficient clearly cannot equal more efficiency.

[CapstoneJHS]

Youtube says you can cook popcorn with your cell phone too, see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj6SZgbBuSQ
I know it sucks, but you can't believe everything you see anymore.

Youtube also says you can make Mountain Dew glow in the dark!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl4agU4GocI


Youtube "proof" FTL!

[Capt. Obvious]

Wow.

Just... WOW.

[mxrz]

I always thought Engine efficiency was mostly physics problem that involves chemistry. But I could be mistaken, I had this topic covered in both classes.

Yes, engine efficiency can be explained by physics, it's called thermodynamics, and more precisely reaction stoichiometry, but you're still only working with quantative relationships between fuel and air during combustion. These known, and measurable relationships are derived from chemistry, which is at the most basic level of the problem in question.

[CapstoneJHS]

Yes, engine efficiency can be explained by physics, it's called thermodynamics, and more precisely reaction stoichiometry, but you're still only working with quantative relationships between fuel and air during combustion. These known, and measurable relationships are derived from chemistry, which is at the most basic level of the problem in question.

Ehh, I have to agree and disagree. You're correct that chemistry is involved, but a heat engine's efficiency is determined by a more than just chemistry. Heat engines are designed for the purpose of converting other forms of energy to work, and their performance is expressed in terms of the thermal efficiency, which is the ratio of the net work produced by the engine (physics) to the total heat input (chemistry). Physics + Chemistry = Thermodynamics.

If you really want to get technical, a 4-stroke engine is based on the Otto Cycle. The thermal efficiency of the Otto Cycle is based on the compression ratio of the piston (physics) raised to the specific heat ratio minus 1 (chemistry).

Simply put, Thermal Efficiency of the Otto Cycle = 1 - (1/(r^(k-1))).

So, your evaluation of engine efficiency being based solely on chemistry isn't correct.

[DELUX]

And this is why there is an idiot buffer...

[B6Lovin]

This is chemistry, not physics.

aren't all sciences physics at heart though?

where would chemical bonding be without the laws of physics (at their most basic and at their most complicated levels.)

[CapstoneJHS]

aren't all sciences physics at heart though?

where would chemical bonding be without the laws of physics (at their most basic and at their most complicated levels.)

haha! You just proved my point in a MUCH simpler way!

[B6Lovin]

i try

i agree and disagree with my own point actually.. its just something i say to irk chemistry nuts hahaha

[mxrz]

your evaluation of engine efficiency being based solely on chemistry isn't correct.

That wasn't my intention. The inefficiency of internal combustion engines is common knowledge. I was talking about the chemistry of water electrolysis. The inefficiency of what these people call the "HHO generator" is based on chemistry...

[CapstoneJHS]

That wasn't my intention. The inefficiency of internal combustion engines is common knowledge. I was talking about the chemistry of water electrolysis. The inefficiency of what these people call the "HHO generator" is based on chemistry...

Well, pardon my confusion. Your chemistry spill was started when T0M3K said, "I always thought Engine efficiency was mostly physics problem that involves chemistry. But I could be mistaken, I had this topic covered in both classes."

[Mikef5000]

This thread got interesting!

[mxrz]

Well, pardon my confusion. Your chemistry spill was started when T0M3K said, "I always thought Engine efficiency was mostly physics problem that involves chemistry. But I could be mistaken, I had this topic covered in both classes."

Yeah, and I basically agreed with that.

[pondside36]

Wow talk about a flash back from college... all this talk of thermos, chemistry, physics makes me want to go do pages of calculations disproving this bogus product.. lol

[CapstoneJHS]

Wow talk about a flash back from college... all this talk of thermos, chemistry, physics makes me want to go do pages of calculations disproving this bogus product.. lol

[pondside36]

^^^ that is hilarious, I was just helping one of my co-workers with pump efficiency problems, so a little algebra/fluid dymanics