Talk:Directory:Smack Booster

Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 14, 2016 at 9:27 pm.

  • This page has been imported from the old peswiki website. This message will be removed once updated.

Discussion page for Directory:Smack Booster

Image:Smack Booster engine 95x95.jpg

Another on-board electrolysis system provides hydroxy gas at a rate of 100 liters per hour, to go into the air intake, which is said to improve mileage and decrease emissions. The Smack booster plans are available for free, and it costs very little to build yourself. Also, a kit is available for $200.


post here

(Just click on the "There was an error working with the wiki: Code[1].)

Boom Gas

On April 8, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Tai Robinson wrote:

wow, another BOOM-gas maker.

[Tai argues that Brown's Gas / hydroxy gas, is very dangerous, and shouldn't be messed with by ameteurs.]

Ok, This is a good time to point out my design is not a toy, and is not for playing games. The gas produced by my unit is extremely explosive and proper safety precautions need to be taken. Any one who takes the time to read the Smack PDF has seen and should observe the safety warnings posted there. Skeptics should not allow themselves to be discouraged, however. None of us seem to have a problem carrying around 20 gallons of flammable gasoline (remember its the vapors that burn), so toting around a few ounces of hydroxy gas should be no sweat. Its hydrogen on demand, remember.


Proven Mileage Improvement is Marginal

On April 8, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Former Member:Mark Anthony Dansie wrote:

I respect Tai and Fran's opinion on this. Given it doesnt do any more than what Fran's would, or any other booster ranging from $200 to $16,000, I cant see what is special about it given the other 70 or 80 on the market.

Having test results from several companies all over the world, and spending several months in dyno testing, etc, I still claim 'using a 1.5 litre a minute booster may at best give up to 20% on a gasoline engine and up to 10% on diesel. In some cases nothing.'

For older vehicles there is a benefit it will clean up the engines and improve the economy.

PS I like the term Boom Gas

Again, I have absolute solid proof that the 1.7LPM my design produces does have an appreciable effect. At $3.60 most people can appreciate any amount of savings. What's special about my design? Well, there is no other design out there PUBLICALLY released (for free) that produces as much gas per amp as mine in an open bath configuration. This means that The Smack Booster is the biggest bang for the buck out there, and one of the easiest to build. In your extensive experience I'm sure you must be able to prove me wrong.


Incomplete Without Air/Fuel Ratio Modification Method

On April 8, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Noah Seidman wrote:

A method of modifying air/fuel ratios is not provided. Therefore the fuel

enhancement system is incomplete.

The open source posting of the plans

substantiates good intent. I appreciate that the marketing is completely

non-manipulative, but the lack of information about air/fuel

modification requirements substantially diminishes the quality of kit

relative to coexisting systems.

OK. Again, I have absolute solid proof that your information is incorrect. As CLEARLY explained on my site, ECM adjustments must be made on a case by case basis due to the fact that hydroxy has different effects on different applications. In fact, neither my Olds nor my Warrior required ANY modifications to the fuel delivery system to attain a solid 20% increase in mileage. Most older computer controlled applications do not require modifications.

Therefore, the system is in fact complete, and the results are solid as shown in my videos posted on this site. As with any new technology, this system is still in development and is not and was never intended to be sold as a stand alone, bolt on system. You guys have to have some basic knowledge of what you are doing.


The original post I am responding to is contaminated by a multitude of errors which I will point out now.

1. It is very apparent that Mr. Giroux has not thoroughly gone over the Smack PDF.

Here one can clearly see that my design is in fact 2 4 series cell stacks configured in parallel. That is a total of 8 operational cells in one common bath. Also, in reading the plans completely one will see a suggested solution for reducing parasitic current losses if so desired.

2. The author accuses me of poor measuring practices. Mr. Giroux has failed to pass his first course at Smack University. As clearly shown in my demonstration vidoes, the temperature of my water during the period of my tests was 126F.

Last time I checked water boils at 212F STP. Therefore, how can the unit under these conditions be producing steam? There is some water vapor exiting the cell, but the amount of vapor is negligible compared to the overall volume. Also, my claimed output has been misquoted. It's 1.7LPM at 12VDC and 20 amps. It is important when attempting to debunk claims to get the facts straight, otherwise your points are invalid and your stand remains in question. So I stand solidly behind my results.

3. Again, Mr. Giroux failed yet another course at Smack University. I have solid recorded proof that 302SS (same stuff the covers are made of) last for at least 2 years and 13,000 miles as shown on my bike. I am still running the same booster with absolutely no corrosion of the plates. Also the Rally videos posted on this site clearly show that even when the plates are stressed way beyond my design limits they still hold up well. 3400 continuous miles over a 4 day period at 30 amps (10 amps over design) and only a smidgen of particulates in the water. And that precipitated out from brand new, unconditioned plates. So the Smack is not a throw away unit. Running within design limits, you can get extended amounts of use out of the unit with no major maintenance.

4. PVC is not my favorite material either, but it has nothing to do with shrapnel. My problem is that it is running at its temperature limit (60C) and can become soft. So much for shrapnel. But again, Mr. Giroux has completely missed the Smack train. One of the main constraints of my design was to make the unit replicatable by anyone almost anywhere, with materials that can be easily obtained. PVC is not the best choice from an engineering standpoint, but from a construction standpoint - there are very few of you who do NOT have access to it and that is key to opening up peoples minds and making the design more than just some fancy lab experiment. For manufacturing ramp up, I will be using plastic injection molding technology with a material better suited for the environment. But as always, the average do-it-yourselfer can replicate the design without hiring a team of engineers and production personnel.

As for making a shrapnel hazard - anyone who understands the physics of explosions can understand that the force of the explosion is caused by resistance to expansion. The more securely you hold initial volume integrity, the more intense the explosion can be. This is why metal pipe bombs are so deadly. You will NEVER catch the Smack endangering your safety by suggesting you use metal containers for your electrolyzers. Anyone who does so should be ashamed and immediately recant their design. Someone could die.

In conclusion, it is important to note that it is very apparent this individual has never built and ran a Smack Booster. Like most skeptics, this man pokes at my design with no real solid data. As for warranting attention, well maybe its not something you are interested in, and it may not warrant attention or voting for the T100, but I could care less about that. What is notable are the THOUSANDS of individuals ALL OVER THE PLANET that are reading, replicating, and applying my design concepts. I sell units all over the planet on almost every continent to all walks of life. I cater to hundreds of emails every week. So the Smack may not win any prizes, but it is winning the hearts and minds of the people and that is all I really care about. I could care less if I sell even one unit so long as my work begins to shift the consciousness of the planet which will hopefully be the catalyst to positive global change both economically and environmentally. That is the true purpose of the Smack design.

Thank you for taking the time to read over this information. Now go verify the truth for yourself.

Happy testing everyone, and welcome to the hydrogen age!


Take a class at Smack U

Poor Measurements Degradable Shrapnel

On April 8, 2008, New Energy Congress member, Congress:Member:Francis Giroux wrote:

The following is not opinion but analysis.

First, the Smack-Booster, if constructed as shown in their plans, is at best a four cell electrolyzer, but only if the shunting currents can be eliminated. The design has many areas for shunting current and this is pointed out in the plans but with no indication of how to eliminate them. With all this shunting gong on, the gas output efficiency would be considerably less than a true four cell electrolyzer, which can only be about 50% if used on an alternator’s 14 volts power. With all the shunting I doubt there is half that much efficiency. I would bet pretty good odds that the unit is only 25% efficient the way it is drawn in the plans.

Secondly, the gas production rate reported (1.5 liters per minute at 20 amps and 12 volts) is a sign of poor measurement or not knowing how to measure. It may be true that the unit can produce 1.5 liters of “gas? per minute at 20 amps (and 14 volts), but not 1.5 liters of Brown’s Gas (hydrogen and oxygen). Because the unit has a low efficiency it will be producing lots of heat, which will boil the water and produce a lot of steam along with the hydrogen and oxygen it produces. But the amount of Brown’s gas it produces is still subject to Faraday’s law. I assume you all know how to calculate the maximum gas producible at 100% efficiency according to Faraday (closer to ½ of what is claimed if it was a true four cell electrolyzer, which it is not). As a rough estimate for a 14 volts electrical supply, I expect 12.5% efficiency for every true cell in the electrolyzer. I also use an estimate of 175 watts per liter per minute as Faradays maximum. That breaks down to 2.916 watt hours per liter. So the claim of 1.5 liters per minute at 20 amps and 12 volts would be 240 watts for 1.5 liters per minute, or 160 watts per minute per liter per minute. That would be an over-unity claim with a unit that is likely only 25% efficient. It should be obvious that this is wrong.

Thirdly, I believe we have all seen, at least on the Internet what happens to “stainless? light switch covers, when used for electroloysis. All switch covers that I know of are made of 304 grade stainless, which is too low a grade to withstand electrolysis without being eaten up within a short amount of time. 316 grade stainless is bad enough, but it’s the best that is available at usable prices. So the Smack-Booster could not really be considered a permanent machine since it would have disposable (consumable) parts. I would, however, consider it at least one step better than the “Hydro-Boost? I read about in 2000 that was made with tomato paste can covers and battery acid. But I would still consider the Smack-Booster a disposable unit, especially considering the next point.

Fourth, a plastic container is a recipe for shrapnel when exposed to internal explosions. I think we can all agree that working with Brown’s gas will eventually lead to an explosion, especially when the electrodes are made of a thin, corrodible metal, in contact with a flowing caustic solution. How long would it be before we could expect a flaked off piece of corroded metal, to float into contact with electrodes that are less than 1/8? apart? Ka-BOOM. And PVC pipe and fittings ka-BOOM into sharp flying pieces. (Nice verb, ka-BOOM). Besides flying shrapnel, PVC doesn’t hold up well to overheating and strong caustic chemicals. I wish “professionals? would quit using PVC containers.

Now for my opinion, I do like that Smack-Booster is more than the typical PVC single cell electrolyzer. Its no Hydrogen Boost® system but its not $1000 either. It certainly doesn’t warrant attention or voting for T100.