I was wondering if anyone installed one on there 6.5 or 6.2.
Me and my buddy put one on his 97 Cavalier and is getting 47 to 50 MPG from 32 not bad! and not dailed in yet I think we could hit 60MPG!

Iam going to install the same thing on my 6.2 I heard it works well on diesels as well.

keep us posted

Is the hydrogen booster a seperate tank of hydrogen or does it produce its own hydrgen? Very interesting :)

I've heard about that, very interested in how it turns out.

Is the hydrogen booster a seperate tank of hydrogen or does it produce its own hydrgen? Very interesting :)

Yes, it produces it on demand, Its a 3" by 12" tall all you have to do is add water

Hmm... interesting :D

Several years back they advertised those in farm papers for Ag. tractors. I never heard any more about it so I thought there must not have been anything to it. Weren't they supposed to split the hyd. from the oxy. in water, then feed it to the engine? Leo

You use tap water and bakin' soda, put a 12V charge to it and get HHO, also called Browns Gas or Hydroxy. I've been doin' lots of readin' about it lately. When I get time I'm gonna build one and see.

You use tap water and bakin' soda, put a 12V charge to it and get HHO, also called Browns Gas or Hydroxy. I've been doin' lots of readin' about it lately. When I get time I'm gonna build one and see.
Tap water is dirty and nasty... It will surely gunk up you hydrogen generator. I highly suggest distilled and instead of just sodium bicarbonate, the baking soda is mixed with vinegar to make a sodium acetate. For some reason, this sodium acetate seems to have a nice burn to it. Problem is, it is kinda subjective as to what ph you want your sodium acetate - more on the acidic side from what I've found.

Faraday found that the electrolysis of sodium acetate produces hydrogen, oxygen, and ethane gas. Here's the "but" part. If you're producing ethane gas, then you are causing a electro-chemical reaction in the water whereas the solution will have to be replaced. If potasium hydroxide of sodium hydroxide is used, then the electrolysis is of the H2O so only water needs to be added.

Oh well... BTW, I get 10-15% better mileage with my hydrogen generator. But I'm told that is impossible as it goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics :rolleyes:

I've read some of the stuff out there too on "watercar." I haven't had time to sort through it all, but let's face it... there are a bunch of pretty smart folk out there who have figured out things that just don't make sense. The quest for overunity devices, COP's over 1, using collapsing electromagnetic fields to generate more power out than in. etc, etc... some is true, and some is not. The age of the internet is very enlightening stuff, but the same time, some stuff sounds very "steaky."

As a moderator and staff here, I like to make sure that all the informatin is crediable on here. I'm have no idea on hydrogren, what products of combustion you may get out of diesel, How it would work.... like a propane system or what?

I will say this, I'm all for folks doing R&D on stuff... but make sure it's got really good data in it. No cryin' if you break it ;)

Oh well... BTW, I get 10-15% better mileage with my hydrogen generator. But I'm told that is impossible as it goes against the Laws of Thermodynamics :rolleyes:

Did a little reading myself. From what I understand, the energy your using is coming from the alternator (for electrolysis) so your not breaking any laws. This probably makes your alternator work harder and will wear sooner, but at these gas prices, 10-15% will buy a lot of alternators.

But then again, your alternator is getting it's power from the engine so maybe you are breaking laws:confused:

OK why would you be breaking the law to do this?

I kinda wanna do this on my truck if it works good :D

OK why would you be breaking the law to do this?


As the man says - It's just basic physics.
Unlike traffic laws, these are hard laws to get away with breaking ;).

The power to sustain the added load to the alternator has to come from somewhere... Not too many choices as to where it comes from.

OTOH - Take a deep cycle battery (OH BOY, another battery) and charge it with a solar cell - You just might have some *free* power - But then again you have to pay for the battery and the solar charger -- and those puppies (DCBs) aren't particulalry light, so you get to carry around a bit more weight too.
There's just no free lunch - Or power. With diesel as $$$$ as it is though, you just might come out ahead. It would be worth the trouble to do the math.

Actually, I was being sarcastic when I said I was breaking laws of physics - hence the roll eyes guy :rolleyes:

I find it funny that 2 volts of electricity with 10 amps for a wopping 20 watts of power is more energy expended than going to the other side of the world, bring up the oil, ship the oil, refine the oil, distribute the oil...

LMAO!!!!

But people still want to accept the "Laws of Thermodynamics" as if it is written in stone by Zeus himself :rolleyes:

But besides better mileage, hydrogen generators provide your vehicle with other valuable end results. Cleaner oil and lower emmissions levels come to mind. Got rid of that cat? LOL, hydrogen via a hydrogen generator will help you pass the sniffer!

But people still want to buy into the whole 'something for nothing' song and dance. Pity :(

OTOH - Take a deep cycle battery (OH BOY, another battery) and charge it with a solar cell - You just might have some *free* power - But then again you have to pay for the battery and the solar charger -- and those puppies (DCBs) aren't particulalry light, so you get to carry around a bit more weight too.
There's just no free lunch - Or power. With diesel as $$$$ as it is though, you just might come out ahead. It would be worth the trouble to do the math.
Ah ha!!!!! Very good thought young Grasshopper... Check this one out:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=YckdAAAAEBAJ&dq=5089107

A battery that not only produces hydrogen as a byproduct but energy to power more hydrogen production through electrolysis. Electrolyte is salt water. In other words, a salt water batery on steroids.

I didn't read the whole thing, but the patent that confused_guy references likely uses the magnesium and aluminum as sacrificial anodes, which means that the energy within the aluminum and magnesium is being used as a fuel for the reaction. Again, there is no free lunch, but many metals have significant energy stored within. You would need to replace the magnesium and aluminum after the reaction has converted them to another compound. Probably magnesium oxide and aluminum oxide.

Rob :)

I didn't read the whole thing, but the patent that confused_guy references likely uses the magnesium and aluminum as sacrificial anodes, which means that the energy within the aluminum and magnesium is being used as a fuel for the reaction. Again, there is no free lunch, but many metals have significant energy stored within. You would need to replace the magnesium and aluminum after the reaction has converted them to another compound. Probably magnesium oxide and aluminum oxide.

Rob :)
Yes, no free lunch. Nobody is saying there is. But what is the cost of the magnesium/aluminum energy versus the petrol energy? Keep in mind the internal combustion engine is grossly inefficient. Perhaps going back to an external combustion engine might be a possibility? The steam engine is more efficient that the ICE. Hmmmmmm.....

There are some free energy things out there... but very touchy items... colapsing electromagnetic field, the bingo fuel project, and a few others... chemical reactions and electronic fields etc that you can harness "free energy from." I've only read about it, and seen others on the net build them and say they work... but I haven't had the time to do it myself yet.

Just so you know it's supposed to be energy in=energy out.

Add fuel to engine, burn it, you get all the energy out of it. Either as heat or torque. One is desired, one is not, but in the end, energy in=energy out.

Electric motor the same way. Heat and torque out, but energy is the same on both sides of the equation.

Some stuff may be a bunch of stuff, but other stuff is real. Hard to deciefer which is which.

Yes, no free lunch. Nobody is saying there is. But what is the cost of the magnesium/aluminum energy versus the petrol energy? Keep in mind the internal combustion engine is grossly inefficient. Perhaps going back to an external combustion engine might be a possibility? The steam engine is more efficient that the ICE. Hmmmmmm.....

Even the best ICEs are only around 20% efficient getting power to the wheels, and that's the direct injection diesels with manual trannies. Generally, direct electric vehicles are around 95-98% efficient, with the only losses coming from friction from differentials and such. I don't think that external combustion would be more efficient...

As for law of thermodynamics, it's what knkreb said - energy in = energy out. There's no way around it. It is called a law because there is no known mechanism where that equation doesn't hold up in our measured universe. Therefore, it is expected that for electrolysis, electrical energy in = energy out. However, because the conversion to hydrogen and oxygen is not 100% efficient (i.e. the energy of the hydrogen is less than the energy of the electricity going in) the battery will eventually run down to 0 if you attempt to run the vehicle solely on hydrogen from electrolysis. There have been some claims that some kind of catalyst or process will provide a chain reaction and generate more hydrogen energy than electrical energy, but this has never been conclusively proven. Several scientists have outright skepticism of that claim because of the laws of thermodynamics.

Have fun,

Rob :)

I think the "energy in = energy out" statement is most likely very valid. BUT then there is the question if in some of these inventions there might be more energy "going in" then what seems obvious from our limited knowledge of the universe. What I suggest is that some of these inventions possibly by pure luck may utilize energy sources that we don't fully understand ayet?

In this respect I think the Meyer cell might be such a device..

Ok I love Numbers..
1 HP=746Watts
1KG of Hydrogen = 39.4KW/h of power
15KW will give us 20 HP I assume that it takes 60 HP to cruse 6500# at 60MPH so that would save 30% of Diesel Fuel.
So how much Energy is needed to make 500g of Hydrogen?

I = current
T = time
Z = valence number of electrons
F = Faraday’s Constant. (96485)

I = nzF/T
I=(96485)*(1)*(503.54)/3600=13495.57 Amps..

I don't think that the batteries and charging system could even handle 10% of that load.

I got my Formulas and Information from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080417075209AAyR9sB and here http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=240

Ok I love Numbers..
1 HP=746Watts
1KG of Hydrogen = 39.4KW/h of power
15KW will give us 20 HP I assume that it takes 60 HP to cruse 6500# at 60MPH so that would save 30% of Diesel Fuel.
So how much Energy is needed to make 500g of Hydrogen?

I = current
T = time
Z = valence number of electrons
F = Faraday’s Constant. (96485)

I = nzF/T
I=(96485)*(1)*(503.54)/3600=13495.57 Amps..

I don't think that the batteries and charging system could even handle 10% of that load.

I got my Formulas and Information from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080417075209AAyR9sB and here http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=240
“Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.” ~Nikola Tesla

But people still want to accept the "Laws of Thermodynamics" as if it is written in stone by Zeus himself

It might as well be.

Anyway, before you spend your money on this bogus . . . ahem, exciting new product, I've got a better deal for you: Oxygen and Bi-Hydrogen Elixer. Only $15 dollars a gallon. Dump it in your tank and its guaranteed to rid you of your fuel filter. Get maximum engine performance and protection with a new filter as a result of ordering this product today.

Free Ear Candle for first 25 orders.

Considering you can build the whole setup for under 50 bucks, it can't hurt to experiment with it. If it turns out that it doesn't produce enough gas to do anything, you can throw some blue or green LEDs inside the canister and wow your friends with your second generation flux capacitor.

Ok I love Numbers..
1 HP=746Watts
1KG of Hydrogen = 39.4KW/h of power
15KW will give us 20 HP I assume that it takes 60 HP to cruse 6500# at 60MPH so that would save 30% of Diesel Fuel.
So how much Energy is needed to make 500g of Hydrogen?

I = current
T = time
Z = valence number of electrons
F = Faraday’s Constant. (96485)

I = nzF/T
I=(96485)*(1)*(503.54)/3600=13495.57 Amps..

I don't think that the batteries and charging system could even handle 10% of that load.

I got my Formulas and Information from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080417075209AAyR9sB and here http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=240

Great numbers! I think to compound matters... the 746=1Hp is true, but let's factor in engine efficiency... which yes energy in... but not true effective desired energy out, meaning the rest is going to be heat instead of torque.

you can throw some blue or green LEDs inside the canister and wow your friends with your second generation flux capacitor. lol :D

I have a buddy whose mind is set on the hydrogen thing as well... I have read some things online about it and my belief is that making hydrogen in a jar under your hood seems like it would be most effective on a smaller engine like a 3L. BUT I hope I am wrong! If someone has done this to their truck and has improved their MPGs I would love to hear about it! As well as seeing some pics of their setup.
I just have a feeling that a hydrogen setup on these trucks is going to be more trouble than it is worth. Slowing down from 75mph to 65mph will probably return better MPGs then a hydrogen generator. ... Just my thoughts.

Aren't these systems also adding the oxygen (o2 g) gas they are producing? This has to have some benefit. The last time I checked O2 is pretty flammable.

If equipment diesels (ie., backhoe, dozer, etc.) can turn a hydro. pump with no problem for hours (with relative effieciency) then what is the additional load the alt. is going to add, in the production of the gases?

With over 1 liter per hour of production, the fuel saving have to be there.

Just my $.02

Coop

this guy is using radio frequency waves to extract hydrogen. he actually set fire to a flask filled with salt water. Ed http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt _Water_Using_Radio_Waves

In doing some further reading on the subject, there seem to be (not knowing the full crediablity of the sources) different forms of hydrogen. Then different methods of electrolsis and disassociation. Using some little circuits that change the electrical powering going to the water solution, you can actually split the hydrogen and oxygen with very little power.

Again, with that said, I'm not sure about their math, crediablity, etc, etc... but did make for some fun reading and desire to do some mad scienctist projects...

he actually set fire to a flask filled with salt water. Ed http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:John_Kanzius_Produces_Hydrogen_from_Salt _Water_Using_Radio_Waves


He is one of my clients....It's even more fascinating when you see it in person. The radio waves create such heat, that the rim of the glass test tube actually ignites as well. While a couple inches away, the bottom of the tube is cold. Yet you can stick your hand in the beam, and feel absolutly nothing. The problem is it still needs far more energy in, than the energy that comes out. But there are some other folks working on the problem, his main focus is on the cancer research.

Aren't these systems also adding the oxygen (o2 g) gas they are producing? This has to have some benefit. The last time I checked O2 is pretty flammable.

If equipment diesels (ie., backhoe, dozer, etc.) can turn a hydro. pump with no problem for hours (with relative effieciency) then what is the additional load the alt. is going to add, in the production of the gases?

With over 1 liter per hour of production, the fuel saving have to be there.

Just my $.02

Coop

Actually, Oxygen is needed to support combustion, but is itself not flammable.

The hydro pumps ARE being turned by diesel engines, where the energy is being converted into mechanical energy at around a 10-20% efficiency, the rest being lost to heat and friction. It works because there is so much energy in diesel fuel, not because it is a perpetual motion machine.

The laws of physics still apply. 1st Law of Thermodynamics is that Energy is neither created nor destroyed - it only changes form. Energy density is constant throughout the Universe.

This means that the electrical energy put into the water from the alternator is being converted to Hydrogen and Oxygen by a process that is less than 100% efficient, with the loss being due to heat, etc.

Kanzius also realizes this, and is careful to point out that the amount of Hydrogen energy being produced by the reaction is less than the amount of electrical energy going into the RF generator.

Purdue is working on use of an Aluminum/Gallium alloy to generate Hydrogen, but again, the Aluminum is converted to Aluminum oxide, which means that the energy in the aluminum is being used to generate the Hydrogen. The Aluminum oxide can be turned back into Aluminum by an Aluminum refining plant, but this would require electricity, usually produced by coal, so the coal is producing the electricity used to convert the aluminum. Nothing comes free.

Rob :)

Aren't these systems also adding the oxygen (o2 g) gas they are producing? This has to have some benefit. The last time I checked O2 is pretty flammable.

Uh, Nope. Oxygen gas is most definitely NOT flammable.

On the other hand, if you remember the 3 parts of your fire triangle, heat, fuel, and oxygen, you might recall that oxygen is a powerful oidant that supports the burning (oxidizing) reaction.

Oxygen will support combustion, make things burn faster and more completely, but it won't burn, on its own.

LOL. I Type too slow, Rob... L)

seems like i remember in chemistry clas seperating h2o by means of copper plating, etc, i don't think that you end up with an oxide metal when you're done, just that the atoms move from the elecrtode to the anode (or the other way around). And when you exhaust the metal on the one side, just switch polarity and send it back the other way. You can keep on seperating the h2o by only exhausting an energy sourcen not creating a metal into an oxide (i think).

I'm kicking myself right now for not studying a little harder in school, i know that some of my terms are not correct.

seems like i remember in chemistry clas seperating h2o by means of copper plating, etc, i don't think that you end up with an oxide metal when you're done, just that the atoms move from the elecrtode to the anode (or the other way around). And when you exhaust the metal on the one side, just switch polarity and send it back the other way. You can keep on seperating the h2o by only exhausting an energy sourcen not creating a metal into an oxide (i think).

I'm kicking myself right now for not studying a little harder in school, i know that some of my terms are not correct.

No no no. I am not referring to Electrolysis. I am referring to this:

http://www.purdue.edu/uns/x/2007a/070515WoodallHydrogen.html

Sincerely,

Rob ;)

Straight electrolysis with DC does have a constant of less than 100% efficiency. However, there seems to be something about using this collapasing magnetic field and osillation that seems to ring true throughout a lot of experimentation. Bedini has done it with his motor that has reached beyone COP of 1. Sweet has done it with magnetic resonator. Water fuel cell project has done it.

The collapsing magnetic field also happens within the IP of the 6.5. When the fuel solenoid closes, you get that voltage spike. It ain't gonna run your engine, but there is a significant spike of voltage coming back.

There is some really funny stuff out there that's really over my head... but to see different experiments from different people that use the same fundamental thought pattern and duplicate it everywhere, it seems like there is something to the idea.

so after an exhausting read here,.
has anyone tried this yet? enough theory already,.
will it help get better fuel effingficency or not,.it,s time for a howard stern moment here,.
NO MORE BS!!
IF the moderators feel compelled to step in and call fowl, er.. foul? on everything,. then they also have a fidicuary responsibility to try this,.instead of being so busy moderating on here,. put your vast collective talents together and git'er done,. then report back and let us know,.

nick

so after an exhausting read here,.
has anyone tried this yet? enough theory already,.
will it help get better fuel effingficency or not,.it,s time for a howard stern moment here,.
NO MORE BS!!
IF the moderators feel compelled to step in and call fowl, er.. foul? on everything,. then they also have a fidicuary responsibility to try this,.instead of being so busy moderating on here,. put your vast collective talents together and git'er done,. then report back and let us know,.

nick

;)

Canadian company called Hy-Drive Technologies Ltd has been targeting the aftermarket commercial diesel line for some time. Their website isn't exactly a model of information though both sites have active links for investors.:rolleyes: They have an automotive link on their website, but that seems to have been farmed out to another company, Martinrea of Vaghaun Ontario. That site isn't any more informative than Hy-Drive's but they do have a published study of the many different gassers they tested in Arizona a few years back.

So far my requests for application information have gone unanswered by both the Canadian and U.S. points of contact. I can't get an acknowledgment let a lone a price quote. Any of our Canadian brothers have knowledge of these guys?

Phantom, I intend to purse this little thing in time... after two things: 1) finding the time to build it, but only after 2) doing my research first. If you only read the fluffy stuff of "how great this is" without checking into the whole story, you may be doing some engine damage. Hyrdogen burns hotter, has more energy, is exteremely voiliate... kinda makes me wonder about if it's the same kinda setup as adding ether with glow plugs? Wanna try it? Do YOU wanna be the guinea pig? If you have a great supply of money and time, and don't mind having some engine damage to repair (if some may result) then move freely ahead.

If you check the wording in my post, it is to caution folks from "go right on ahead and do it." As always, just like with veggie oil, do your research first... cause yes, you might save some money on fuel, but fuel system damage ain't cheap either. I feel compelled as a moderator to make sure that I'm not leading folks down the roadway to distruction. I respect my machinery, and I do others too. It ain't my money and time going into their rig, so I try to respect the fact that they are not bottomless pits of money or time either, much like myself.

so after an exhausting read here,.
has anyone tried this yet? enough theory already,.
will it help get better fuel effingficency or not,.it,s time for a howard stern moment here,.
NO MORE BS!!
IF the moderators feel compelled to step in and call fowl, er.. foul? on everything,. then they also have a fidicuary responsibility to try this,.instead of being so busy moderating on here,. put your vast collective talents together and git'er done,. then report back and let us know,.

nick

Heck, Nick, Grand Valley ain't that far from Mississauga ... only 50 miles.

How 'bout you go get us an eyewitness reoprt? I hear tell they're running several school bus fleets on those things down there.

i belong to a forum on this and have a set of plans from "Run a Car on Water" and it's a lot more than just a glass mason jar and a couple of wires...i'm going to start next week on collecting parts to build one to power a 14hp Wisconsin engine to power a gen head....then i'll move to the 93 1ton.....i'll keep you in formed on the progress..

btw if anyone would like a set of the plans kick me a pm..i got them for free so i'm out nothing..

hitch... does any of the stuff you are reading involve diesels? I'm *thinking* that our engines may be robust enough to not need anything, but just wondering if there are any pitfalls to this. I'm still very new in the reading on all of this, just wondering if anyone with more experience has seen positives/negatives on the setup.

Heck, Nick, Grand Valley ain't that far from Mississauga ... only 50 miles.

How 'bout you go get us an eyewitness reoprt? I hear tell they're running several school bus fleets on those things down there.

No thanks jimmy,. i,m far too busy trying to feed the family (yes i,ve also 5 kids at home,. 3 teenagers) with the reduced revenue from the sh*tkicking that my industry has taken. I,m quite content to sit back and let others pioneer the way for me,.i,ve no aspirations to greatness,. and no aspirations to be my brothers keeper either (some folks aspire to be that tho,.),. thats why you don't see the word "Moderator" in my signature,. because moderator seems to have a whole different connotation to the word here compared to the forum that I moderate,.
I,ve also no wish to put myself into the line of critical fire that will come from disproving and cynical moderators who haven't yet dissected and re-engineered this idea to fit the totally unique (as i,ve been told) 6.5 diesel. i,d likley be tempted to use some of my experiences from other automotive situations which as i,ve been told are totally irrelevant when it comes to dealing with the totally unique 6.5 diesel that resides in our trucks,..
Perhaps if your schedule is not filled with too many demands on your time,.i,d be glad to send you $10.00 or so towards the home depot parts it takes to make one? as for the amount of browns gas that one of these generators makes being detrimental to the 6.5 diesel,. well that does remains to be seen,.but somehow i doubt it,.;) of course forgetting for an instance there just how unique a 6.5 diesel is,.
Nick

PS,. with todays fuel costs,. do you really think i,m about to invest $50.00 in fuel and food, to go 100mi to visit mississaugua? for an eye witness report? Sorry my dedication to this particular venture goes no further than exercising a some digits,. 1 digit to repeatedly extend upwards towards the screen,. a couple more to type my replies,.

I've been looking for hydrogen info every once in a great while. I've got in about 45 minutes of research in so far - all of my spare time in the last 2 monthes.
In Arizona? they converted a diesel bus to run on Hydrogen. I think they had to reduce the compression ratio. Toyota has also been working on hydrogen fueled vehicles.
The pics I have seen the hydrogen was a container similar to a propane tank.
Acouple of years back I read something on producing hydrogen. The producing sounded easy & relatively inexpensive - the compressing for storage & use necessitated safety precautions but seemed similar to the handling of propane.

I've been playing with this thought in my mind on and off a year or two but never got as far as making or even designing one for my purpose. There is ALOT of different takes on this out there and what most of them have in common is that documentation is sparse and not very well thought out. Lots of undocumented claims and big words make it hard to get to the core of what they are doing how and why.

That said I still find it intriguing tho. I guess if you managed to get some serious hydrogen production going on under the hood it would probably be a good idea to get a custom tune for this scenario..

I remember reading Hy-Drive's promotional stuff just shortly after their IPO, and if I recall correctly, they had a few of the local (Ontario) trucking companies and school bus fleets running their equipment, along with data and testimonials.

They seemed to get real quiet for a while here in Canada, while they did a whole bunch of work and marketing down inthe USA... lots of it in Arizona and Texas.

I also know they've been working with a European manufacturer to produce a different version, but I'm not sure where that's at.

Snake oil? Maybe. Usually though, there's a grain of truth in many of these ideas.

If using a small amount of hydrogen as a combustion catalyst causes a greater % efficiency in a diesel engine, then 3-5% mileage gains are plausible, without question. Producing hydrogen through non-catalytic electrolysis in small amounts is easy and the amount of energy consumed isn't really consequential.

If the idea is to use hydrogen to replace the diesel fuel, then no, it would be prohibitively expensive and energy-inefficient, in my opinion. The low BTU rating of Hydrogen, coupled with it's relative instability, sort of rules out its use as a power-enhancer.

With fuel prices where they are, 3% savings start to get attractive, especially to fleet operations or long-haulers. I imagine that a school bus fleet would save a lot of money with the amount they drive every day. The cost of the devices then becomes an issue, as that affects the operational time needed for ROI.

Safety shouldn't be an issue if the hydrogen is being produced on-demand.

I think when using something to boost mpg, you have to look at the whole picture, I'm sure it's true that using a booster or a fitch catalist, or even a bigger exhaust, you won't see big gains till you use more and more products that boost milage, and the benefits you see from one alone, may not be worth it. I know the more and more I add stuff on my tryuck, the more and more I see a savings at the pump (if the fawkers would quit raising it, $1.409/L last time I went to the pumps) I started out with 17mpg average, crossover, downpipe and muffler all helped bump it up to low 19/high 18, then with royal purple in the engine on the trip back from picking up the 6.2 block from dave in london, I averaged 20.5 (roughly), now I'm waiting for a long trip again to check my milage now that I've put royal purple in the trans yesterday :D

You can compound turbos, why not compound economy devices?

Great points, Justin... the cumulative effect of lots of little things.

Problem is, each one of those little things doesn't gain you enough mileage to pay itself off, and so each one needs to have another purpose, as well... the big exhaust, or air intake also helps power and runs cooler. The better lube is also better for cold starts an promotes longevity. If each of the mods fulfills its intended purpose, then any mileage gains you get are just a bonus, a by-product of the original intent.

Which makes them free. Doesn't take much fuel savings to pay off free things! :)

I've been looking for hydrogen info every once in a great while. I've got in about 45 minutes of research in so far - all of my spare time in the last 2 monthes.
In Arizona? they converted a diesel bus to run on Hydrogen. I think they had to reduce the compression ratio. Toyota has also been working on hydrogen fueled vehicles.
The pics I have seen the hydrogen was a container similar to a propane tank.
Acouple of years back I read something on producing hydrogen. The producing sounded easy & relatively inexpensive - the compressing for storage & use necessitated safety precautions but seemed similar to the handling of propane.

Not like propane at all. Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element. It has a mere fraction of the energy density than a large hydrocarbon molecule like propane. Propane can be liquified at low pressures and room temperatures and has about an 8:1 vapor ratio when expanded from liquid. To get any fuel volume at all, you'd have to hyper compress gaseous hydrogen to thousands of psi or, do like NASA does, and liquify it to super-cryogenic temperatures of -285 deg F. Good luck with that.

So how did Toyota get around that on their prototype? And how did they store the fuel for the bus conversion? I'm interested in good info on the subject but don't have time to do the searches necessary to find the answers. Especially the way my computer is running today.

Not like propane at all. Hydrogen is the smallest and lightest element. It has a mere fraction of the energy density than a large hydrocarbon molecule like propane. Propane can be liquified at low pressures and room temperatures and has about an 8:1 vapor ratio when expanded from liquid. To get any fuel volume at all, you'd have to hyper compress gaseous hydrogen to thousands of psi or, do like NASA does, and liquify it to super-cryogenic temperatures of -285 deg F. Good luck with that.

Have any of you guys heard of embrittlement? Apparently exposing the engine to hydrogen can cause undesirable results.

Burning HO gas complements the diesel combustion converting more chemical energy into mechanical energy. There's no free energy at work. There's simply less wasted energy going out the exhaust pipe.

The systems I've been looking at make it on demand moreso than store up fuel.

Have any of you guys heard of embrittlement? Apparently exposing the engine to hydrogen can cause undesirable results.

Burning HO gas complements the diesel combustion converting more chemical energy into mechanical energy. There's no free energy at work. There's simply less wasted energy going out the exhaust pipe.


Ah, okay... is this from a chemical reaction of buring hydrogen? Does this still ring true with Brown Gas with burning to make water? Straight hyrdogen combustion would lead to helium. But H2 and O to create water, would the same hold true? Seems almost like one of the benefits of Water Mist with expansion of water and steam.

So how did Toyota get around that on their prototype? And how did they store the fuel for the bus conversion? I'm interested in good info on the subject but don't have time to do the searches necessary to find the answers. Especially the way my computer is running today.

There's a BIG difference between a "hydrogen FUEL CELL" vehicle and a vehicle that's trying to BURN hydrogen as fuel. That get's confused a lot these days. A hydrogen fuel cell is a special battery that produces electricity for a hybrid-type vehicle. There hasn't been a good system developed for storage of hydrogen as fuel for internal combustion just because of the reasons I listed. Many of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use a high pressure hydrogen storage tank, but they use a fraction of the hydrogen in the fuel cells than an engine would require with hydrogen as fuel.

Have any of you guys heard of embrittlement? Apparently exposing the engine to hydrogen can cause undesirable results.

Burning HO gas complements the diesel combustion converting more chemical energy into mechanical energy. There's no free energy at work. There's simply less wasted energy going out the exhaust pipe.

Where do you get the HO? You use horsepower and burn diesel to produce the electricity to power your electrolytic cell. The total net energy possibly gained from the HO produced (IF you could burn it 100% at 100% efficiency) takes MORE energy (electricity - horsepower - fuel) to produce that it could supply. If you put in a tank of HO produced elsewhere (your garage? you're paying for the electricity there, too) it will run out in minutes. Diesel engines are already in the high 80% efficiency range for burning diesel fuel. IF you could get JUST the right combination of HO at JUST the right time in the power stroke (at all rpms and loads) you MIGHT get a couple of percent more efficiency (and I'm being very kind) but you are still burning more fuel and losing power in the total proposition. There IS no free lunch, and scientists were playing with hydrogen a century or more before internal combustion engines and we've been tinkering with them for nearly 200 years now. So I ask you, why are there no hydrogen cells on today's totally scientifically and engineering optimized designs? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Maybe THEY DON'T WORK?:D

Not all that sure about that line of thought, chief...

... given the notion that the hydrogen is being used as a flame-front catalyst, rather than a fuel, I think it is reasonable that a small amount of hydrogen could help the diesel burn more completely. Energy-wise, you're right, but you are forgetting the relative efficiency of the two fuels; diesel produces a lot more energy per mole than hydrogen. Therefore, it takes a relatively small amount of diesel energy to release a small amount of hydrogen by non-catalytic electrolysis.

That small amount of hydrogen, acting as a FF catalyst, could very conceivably raise the efficiency of the diesel combustion by a greater amount than what is taken to produce said hydrogen... in fact, I'm quite sure it would do so, given the relative heats of reaction.

The question is, just how much greater diesel efficiency could you get out of hydrogen fumigation? In a very efficient diesel engine (which the 6.5 IDI is not, as you well know), that would get hard, as the law of diminishing returns kicks in. In a 6.5, I'm not so sure.

Just musing, ya know?

That small amount of hydrogen, acting as a FF catalyst, could very conceivably raise the efficiency of the diesel combustion by a greater amount than what is taken to produce said hydrogen... in fact, I'm quite sure it would do so, given the relative heats of reaction.
You are right, and it does. Idle_Chatter loves jumping on hydrogen threads to pevent others from experimenting on their own. Question is, why? Sometimes it's not what a person believes but the agenda they push. hmmmmmm..... :rolleyes:

Whoa, hold on, I'm not jumping on Tom, just advancing the discussion with an alternate viewpoint. I don't know as much about hydrogen fumigation as I would like, and I welcome all viewpoints backed with fact or solid theory... it helps ME to get this sorted out.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the 'it's plausible' side of the scale, but I'm still a long ways from 'it works good'.

Still waiting for your success story, there Confuzed Guy. You've been on this case long enough to have produced some verified results, haven't you? I see that you've moved from experimentation and "science" to conspiracy theory and whack-job - keep up the good work!:rolleyes::D

Whoa, hold on, I'm not jumping on Tom, just advancing the discussion with an alternate viewpoint. I don't know as much about hydrogen fumigation as I would like, and I welcome all viewpoints backed with fact or solid theory... it helps ME to get this sorted out.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the 'it's plausible' side of the scale, but I'm still a long ways from 'it works good'.

I try to stay away from these threads, because it's like arguing religion with some folks. The thing with the basis for the scam is just a little bit of plausibility, and you are correct that there could be some possible benefit from changing the fuel/air mix and adding a little Brown's gas, BUT and it's a very large but - the ratio/proportion and timing would have to be very carefully controlled and metered for the large number of variables in the range of engine speed and load. I'm more than skeptical that a relatively uncontrolled injection in the intake could produce any real-world gains and the basic physics of the proposed process is a loser out the gate. If it were a winner (unless you think BIG OIL and MEN IN BLACK are hiding the TRUTH, like Really Confuzed Guy) I hold with the easy assumption that there would be OEM electrolytic cells on every car. But I'm with the "bad guys" and we have to arrange an "accident" for Confuzed Guy soon cause he's getting too close to the truth.:eek::rolleyes::)

Actually, it isn't 'Brown's Gas' I was referring to, but real molecular Hydrogen, which units like the Hy-Drive produce. Brown's gas (a somewhat shady name, given the history of the individual it's named for) is HOH, or combined gas products of non-catalytic electrolysis.

H2 is much more controllable as an injection component, and really is being tested quantitatively in the field:

http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2005/11/69529

The big issued appear to be reliability of the system and ROI time; how long it takes to recoup your investment for these somewhat pricey units. Also, the temperature thing makes water a not-very-desirable thing in the winter up here, hence the long-range trials in Arizona and Texas.

But still, although I concede that much of the data is making good sense, I remain skeptical, and need to hear more sides/viewpoints.

I know you're a little skeptical of the mason-jar, tinfoil electrodes, and 9-v battery proposed by some of the tabloid advertisers, but perhaps take a look at this:

http://www.hy-drive.com

I want to know more. To do that, I need to remain open to possibility.

Still waiting for your success story, there Confuzed Guy. You've been on this case long enough to have produced some verified results, haven't you? I see that you've moved from experimentation and "science" to conspiracy theory and whack-job - keep up the good work!:rolleyes::D
LOL, and you can keep on waiting there. My hydrogen generating system saves me 15% in fuel costs - at $5/gallon, that's $.75. Guess what that means? The higher fuel goes, the more I save :D

But as far as me proving anything to you, keep holding your breath. You aren't worth my time or effort and the likes of you can keep paying at the pump - people like you can keep buying into what you are told about "peak" oil, LMAO!!!

Good luck as I am working a new alternative fuel angle that should save me another 10% in fuel costs.... Get ready for $7 by end of summer Mr. Mouth ;)

Have any of you guys heard of embrittlement? Apparently exposing the engine to hydrogen can cause undesirable results.

Hey joispoi ... sorry for ignoring your post... I meant to respond back a page or so ago... and then my mind wandered. (seems to be more common these days)

If I recall correctly, Hydrogen infusion in metals only happens in the presence of high temperatures (like melting-pt stuff) or in the presence of high temp and catalytic compounds (methane comes to mind)

That would be why 7018 LH welding rods are low-hydrogen comp, to keep from getting that brittle interface when arc-welding steel in atmosphere.

Is this still an issue in finished metals under less than melting-pt regimes? I'm honestly not sure, so that makes it another good thing to think about.

I think I'll ask my son-in-law, the welder, next chance I get.

Anybody else know?

H2 is much more controllable as an injection component, and really is being tested quantitatively in the field....
Good start but I suggest you look into H1 instead of H2 *hint* *hint*

Also, conversion of hydrogen to tritium is being studied and isn't as far away as some may think - but there are other issues with this one :rolleyes:

Last but not least, O3 is very promissing and my latest endeavor. But this is the first and last time I'll post about this project here as too many nay-sayers to make it worth my while. :D

Good luck!

Hey joispoi ... sorry for ignoring your post... I meant to respond back a page or so ago... and then my mind wandered. (seems to be more common these days)

If I recall correctly, Hydrogen infusion in metals only happens in the presence of high temperatures (like melting-pt stuff) or in the presence of high temp and catalytic compounds (methane comes to mind)

That would be why 7018 LH welding rods are low-hydrogen comp, to keep from getting that brittle interface when arc-welding steel in atmosphere.

Is this still an issue in finished metals under less than melting-pt regimes? I'm honestly not sure, so that makes it another good thing to think about.

I think I'll ask my son-in-law, the welder, next chance I get.

Anybody else know?

Hydrogen embrittlement is a high temperature and high stress issue, like you noted. It's most prevalent in the manufacture of certain stainless steel alloys and also affects some SS alloys in nuclear reactor applications and some high strength steels used in high tension fasteners. Shouldn't be an issue in the applications being discussed here.

http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Forms-HIC/embrittlement.htm

Everybody talks about the energy in & enrgy out ratio but I haven't heard anybody mention the stored energy that is being released. It takes energy to convert crude oil to a usable form but apparently that conversion is working out. So I can see where converting water to a usable form could also work.
Water heaters have been known to make hydrogen gas & explosions when they are left running and the source of water is cut off. Such as when people go on vacation and shut their water off but forget to turn off their water heater.

Just need to get this off my chest. The laws of thermodynamics are laws, and it you look at what's happening in a browns gas systems you are not breaking the law of thermodynamics. Remember, you are only releasing the energy from the water as H and O. Also the O is assisting in increasing the effiecncy of the the Carbon burn from the fuel. If someone claims to never have to add water to the system and run "forever" then they are full of shit;) But this is not the case with the claims I have reviewed.

Anyone have any experience with engine life given Hydrogen exposure to steel over any length of time?

Tim

Diesel engines are already in the high 80% efficiency range for burning diesel fuel.

Not sure where you get that info, Chat...
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_efficiency
"For example, a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% thermal efficiency... The largest diesel engine in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%A4rtsil%C3%A4-Sulzer_RTA96-C) peaks at 51.7%."

During my marine engineering studies (admittedly, 30 years ago) I recall that diesel engine thermal efficiencies average somewhere in the 35-40 percent range. (Horsepower out divided by BTU's in) The technologies have obviously advanced greatly since then.

The total net energy possibly gained from the HO produced (IF you could burn it 100% at 100% efficiency) takes MORE energy (electricity - horsepower - fuel) to produce that it could supply.

You are quite correct, Chat, the second law of thermodynamics says that you cannot get more energy out of a system than you put in.

However, it would appear that the efficiency gains come NOT from the actual BTU's of hydrogen that you are adding,
but from the effect that the hydrogen has on how the main (diesel) fuel charge burns.
Since thermal efficiencies in internal combustion engines are so low, even a percent or two is a fairly pronounced gain.

The following is quoted from a site trying to sell an HHO generator, which, to me, automatically warrants some skepticism.
However, I believe these claims are at least believeable enough to bear some investigative scrutiny; below I explain why.

Quoted from http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Goverment_press_releases.html (http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Goverment_press_releases.html) (emphasis added)
...a Hydrogen Generating System (HGS) for trucks or cars has been on the market for some time. Mounted on a vehicle, it feeds small amounts of hydrogen and oxygen into the engine's air intake. Its makers claim savings in fuel, reduced noxious and greenhouse gases and increased power. The auto industry is not devoid of hoaxes and as engineers are sceptics by training, it is no surprise that a few of them say the idea won't work. Such opinions, from engineers can't be dismissed without explaining why I think these Hydrogen Generating Systems do work and are not just another hoax. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is a likely source of those doubts. Meaning ...the law -would lead you to believe that it will certainly take more power to produce this hydrogen than can be regained by burning it in the engine. i.e. the resulting energy balance should be negative. If the aim is to create hydrogen by electrolysis to be burned as a fuel, the concept is ridiculous. On the other hand, if hydrogen shortens the burn time of the main fuel-air mix, putting more pressure on the piston through a longer effective power stroke, and in doing so takes more work out, then this system does make sense. Does it work? Independent studies, at different universities, using various fuels, have shown that flame speeds increase when small amounts of hydrogen are added to air-fuel mixes.

The results of tests at Corrections Canada's, Bowden Alberta Institution and other independent tests reinforce the belief that combustion is significantly accelerated. They found with the HGS on, unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO, in the exhaust were either eliminated or drastically reduced and at the same R.P.M. the engine produced more torque from less fuel.

Recently I took part in the highway test of a vehicle driven twice over the same 200-kilometre course, on cruise control, at the same speed, once with the system off and once with it on. A temperature sensor from an accurate pyrometer kit had been inserted directly into the exhaust manifold, to eliminate thermal distortion from the catalytic converter. On average, the exhaust manifold temperature was 65°F lower during the second trip when the Hydrogen Generating System was switched on. The fuel consumption with the unit off was 5.13253 km/li. and 7.2481 km/li. with it on, giving a mileage increase of 41.2% and a fuel savings attributable to the unit of 29.18%.

From the foregoing, the near absence of carbon monoxide and unburnt hydrocarbons confirms a very complete and much faster burn. Cooler exhaust temperatures show that more work is taken out during the power stroke. More torque from less fuel at the same R.P.M. verifies that higher pressure from a faster burn, acting through a longer effective power stroke, produces more torque and thus more work from less fuel. The considerable reduction in nitrous oxides (NOx} was a surprise. I had assumed that the extreme temperatures from such a rapid intense burn would produce more NO.,. Time plus high temperature are both essential for nitrous oxides to form. As the extreme burn temperatures are of such short duration and temperature through the remainder of the power stroke and the entire exhaust stroke, will, on average, be much cooler. With this in mind, it is not so surprising that less NOx is produced when the HGS is operating.

An engineering classmate suggested a grass fire as a useful analogy to understand combustion within an engine. The flame front of a grass fire is distinct and its speed depends in part on the closeness of the individual blades. If grass is first sprayed with a small amount of gasoline to initiate combustion, then all blades will ignite almost in unison. In much the same way, small amounts of nascent oxygen and hydrogen present in the fuel-air mix will cause a chain reaction that ignites all the primary fuel molecules simultaneously. Faster more complete burns are the keys to improving efficiency in internal combustion engines. Power gained from increased thermal efficiency, less the power to the electrolysis unit, is the measure of real gain or loss. It follows from the foregoing paragraph that even a modest gain in thermal efficiency will be greater than the power used by an electrolysis unit. The net result should therefore be positive. Thus onboard electrolysis systems supplying hydrogen and oxygen to internal combustion engines, fuelled by diesel, gasoline or propane, should substantially increase efficiencies.

Mixing hydrogen with hydrocarbon fuels provides combustion stimulation by increasing the rate of molecular-cracking processes in which large hydrocarbons are broken into smaller fragments. Expediting production of smaller molecular fragments is beneficial in increasing the surface-to-volume ratio and consequent exposure to oxygen for completion of the combustion process. Relatively small amount of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce emissions of atmospheric pollutants.

<<<end of quote>>>

Incidentally, Chat, I did some math:

My engine is a 6.5-liter, at freeway speeds it is turning about 2000 RPM.

An intake stroke occurs in each cylinder every other stroke, therefore 1000 times per minute the engine is theoretically sucking 6.5 liters of air. So theoretically, 6500 liters per minute, not counting fluid-flow losses, or the extra air the turbo packs in (boost on a stock 6.5 is very low)

The unit claims 3.7 to 4.2 liters per minute, about 60% of 6.5.

SO the amount of hydrogen introduced is roughly 60% of 1/1000'th of the air moving through the engine. So the total amount of hydrogen introduced is only roughly 60/10,000's (0.0006) of the air, or in percentages, 0.06%.

Not much, certainly not significant in terms of BTU's.

Since the hydrogen is in the air charge entering the cylinder, it is likely to preignite sometime during the compression stroke...much like preignition in a gasoline engine caused by carbon "hotspots" in the cylinder, which is very damaging to the engine.

But in a gasoline engine, you are igniting the full charge of fuel during the upstroke of the piston, causing a sharp and sudden pressure rise in opposition to the compression stroke.

Furthermore, you are igniting this charge early in the stroke; as soon as the fuel vapors come in contact with the hot spot. By contrast, compression ignition does not occur until about 12 to 14:1...being that our 6.5 engines have compression ratios of 21:1, pre-ignition does not even theoretically begin until roughly the last 1/3 of the piston travel.

So if the hydrogen charge ignites in a diesel during the compression stroke, will it cause a dramatic adverse pressure rise? I don't think so...as my previous calculations show, there simply is not enough hydrogen in the cylinder to cause much of a pressure rise, plus the fact that any rise would occur late in the compression stroke.

Thus tight control of the amount of hydrogen introduced would not appear to be absolutely necessary to realize some benefit. If one were trying to maximize benefit by injecting as much hydrogen as possible, then yes, I would agree that tighter controls are necessary.

However, starting the burn early would appear to have some benefit...do you know that the Duramax does this? It uses a small pre-injection of diesel fuel, which begins burning before the main injection event...this reduces "knock," which is why Duramaxes are so much quieter than the equivalent Ford FlowerCroak and Dodge Cummins diesels.

I have no practical experience in the matter of HHO injection...I can only rely on the research of others, and have not verified that research or the qualifications of the researchers.

But objectively, as a marine engineer, the "grassfire" analogy and the "faster burn" explanation make sense to me. Gasoline molecules are big, ugly, relatively slow-burning, complex hydrocarbon chains...and diesel molecules are even bigger and slower and uglier. Using a "catalyst" to open several flame fronts at once makes as much sense to me as using an accelerant to make a grass fire burn faster. When you start a campfire, don't you try to start the log burning in several places at once? Don't you use some tinder (or even some lighter fluid or wax candles or diesel fuel) to help get the log burning a little bit faster?

A faster burn translates to higher cylinder pressures (higher BMEP or Brake Mean Effective Pressure) sooner during the power stroke. Higher pressures and a longer power stroke translate to more power and more torque for the same fuel use...or conversely, LESS fuel use to generate the same amount of power and torque.

Would the higher pressures mean more engine wear?
No more so than any other power and/or performance upgrades, such as "chipping" the computer, increasing the boost and fuel rate, etc., which do essentially the same thing, increasing cylinder pressure.

As I mentioned, I have no practical experience...but the grassfire analogy makes enough sense TO ME to warrant keeping an open mind, and not just dismissing out-of-hand the claims of guys like Confuzed, who are not trying to sell us anything and thus have nothing to gain or lose by sharing their experiences with us.

And as to why Detroit hasn't adopted such technologies? ROFLMAO!!!! :laugh_exp
1) We on this board are generally tech-heads, who don't mind having to plunge under the hood once a week to gain a few mpg's or some power.
....1a) Think they can sell that need to the general public, like my mother, who can barely get in and turn the key?
....1b) They are already having a tough enough time selling the idea of a urea tank in the new diesels that needs to be refilled at each oil change.
....1c) Enough people don't check their oil, or coolant, or battery water, or the air in their tires often enough...think Detroit can sell the idea of having to put distilled water in the hydrolysis tank every couple of days?
....1d) Think Detroit wants the liability when people DON'T do that?
2) Despite their public advertising, don't you think the "powers that be" in Detroit just might have a private agenda, other than increased mileage or power? Ever see "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

Incidentally, the hydrolysis ratio for water is about 1250:1.
So if you're producing roughly a gallon of hydrogen per minute, or 60 gallons per hour,
you're going to use roughly a gallon of water in 20 hours of run time.

There's a BIG difference between a "hydrogen FUEL CELL" vehicle and a vehicle that's trying to BURN hydrogen as fuel. That get's confused a lot these days. A hydrogen fuel cell is a special battery that produces electricity for a hybrid-type vehicle. There hasn't been a good system developed for storage of hydrogen as fuel for internal combustion just because of the reasons I listed. Many of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use a high pressure hydrogen storage tank, but they use a fraction of the hydrogen in the fuel cells than an engine would require with hydrogen as fuel.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLL,GGLL:2008-19,GGLL:en&q=hydrogen+fueled+bus

Just think about the differance some additives make in very small quantities. I see it as the same principal.

Excellent points, Clip. However, on the efficiency issue - you are confusing thermal efficiency and fuel efficiency. I was referring to the latter - a modern HPCR engine will easily be 30% or higher than a gasoline engine in fuel efficiency. The more efficient the engine in burning the fuel in the power stroke, the less efficient your hydrogen injection can be, because there is little or no "extra" fuel to be burned by its addition. Without reprogramming for the addition of the hydrogen, the already optimized ECM may be working against your addition - as is the case in many of these attempts on a gasoline engine that uses the exhaust oxygen sensor to control fuel injection.

I'm a little confused by your "ignition during the compression stroke" issues, there Clip. Remember that a gasoline engine compresses the fuel air mixture during the compression stroke, but a diesel engine only compresses the air and there's no fuel until injection. That kind of takes that off the ignition/wave front discussion there Clip. And it begs the issue of compressing the hydrogen added with the air charge BEFORE fuel is injected, so you have a high pressure high temperature mix of air and hydrogen before you introduce fuel, not vice versa, which the discussion seems to lean heavily upon.

Not saying it can't be done, not saying that there aren't some minor efficiencies to be tweaked out. Just saying that a mason jar with a couple of electrodes jury rigged into the intake is no "miracle mileage wonder."

Fools and their money are soon parted, and desperate times are the huckster's playground.

Ah, okay... is this from a chemical reaction of buring hydrogen? Does this still ring true with Brown Gas with burning to make water? Straight hyrdogen combustion would lead to helium. But H2 and O to create water, would the same hold true? Seems almost like one of the benefits of Water Mist with expansion of water and steam.

I hope you're kidding me...:confused: Straight hydrogen combustion results in H2O. Brown's gas is just a BS name for hydrogen gas mixed with oxygen gas. Helium is a completely different element and doesn't enter into this topic.Hydrogen embrittlement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wikipedia) •


Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#searchInput)
Hydrogen embrittlement (or hydrogen grooving) is the process by which various metals, most importantly high-strength steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel), become brittle and crack following exposure to hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen). Hydrogen cracking can pose an engineering problem especially in the context of a hydrogen economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy). However, commercially workable and safe technology exists globally in the hydrogen industry, which produces some 50 million metric tons per year.
Hydrogen embrittlement is also used to describe the formation of zircaloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zircaloy) hydride. This use of the term in this context is common in the nuclear industry.
Contents

[hide (javascript:toggleToc())]

1 Process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#Process)
1.1 Counteractions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#Counteractions)
2 Hydrogen attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#Hydrogen_attack)
3 Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#Test)
4 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#See_also)
5 External links (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement#External_links)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen_embrittlement&action=edit&section=1)] Process

The mechanism begins with lone hydrogen atoms diffusing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion) through the metal. When these hydrogen atoms re-combine in minuscule voids of the metal matrix to form hydrogen molecules, they create pressure from inside the cavity they are in. This pressure can increase to levels where the metal has reduced ductility and tensile strength, up to the point where it cracks open ("Hydrogen Induced Cracking", or HIC). High-strength and low-alloy steels, aluminium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), and titanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium) alloys are most susceptible. Steel with a ultimate tensile strength of less than 1000 MPa or hardness of less than 30 HRC are not generally considered susceptable to hydrogen embrittlement.
Hydrogen embrittlement can happen during various manufacturing operations or operational use, anywhere where the metal comes in contact with atomic or molecular hydrogen. Processes which can lead to this include cathodic protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection), phosphating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphating), pickling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickling_%28metal%29), and electroplating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating). A special case is arc welding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_welding), in which the hydrogen is released from moisture (for example in the coating of the welding electrodes; to minimize this, special low-hydrogen electrodes are used for welding high-strength steels). Other mechanisms of introduction of hydrogen into metal are galvanic corrosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion), chemical reactions of metal with acids, or with other chemicals (notably hydrogen sulfide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide) in sulfide stress cracking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfide_stress_cracking), or SSC, a process of importance for the oil and gas industries).

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen_embrittlement&action=edit&section=2)] Counteractions

If the metal has not yet started to crack, the condition can be reversed by removing the hydrogen source and causing the hydrogen within the metal to diffuse out - possibly at elevated temperatures. Susceptible alloys, after chemical or electrochemical treatments where hydrogen is produced, are often subjected to heat treatment in order to remove absorbed hydrogen.
In the case of welding, often pre- and post-heating the metal is applied to allow the hydrogen to diffuse out before it can cause any damage. This is specifically done with high-strength steels and low alloy steels such as the chrome/molybdenum/vanadium alloys. Due to the time needed to re-combine hydrogen atoms to the harmful hydrogen molecules, hydrogen cracking due to welding can occur over 24 hours after the welding operation is completed.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen_embrittlement&action=edit&section=3)] Hydrogen attack

If steel is exposed to hydrogen at high temperatures, hydrogen will diffuse into the alloy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alloy) and combine with carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon) to form tiny pockets of methane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane) at internal surfaces like grain boundaries and voids. This methane does not diffuse out of the metal, and collects in the voids at high pressure and initiates cracks in the steel. This process is known as hydrogen attack and leads to decarburization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decarburization) of the steel and loss of strength.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hydrogen_embrittlement&action=edit&section=4)] Test

There is an ASTM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTM) standard for testing of embrittlement due to Hydrogen Gas [1] (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/F1459.htm?E+mystore)- F1459-06 Standard Test Method for Determination of the Susceptibility of Metallic Materials to Hydrogen Gas Embrittlement (HGE). Another ASTM standard exists for quantitatively testing for the Hydrogen Embrittlement threshold stress for the onset of Hydrogen-Induced Cracking due to platings and coatings from Internal Hydrogen Embrittlement (IHE) and Environmental Hydrogen Embrittlement (EHE) [2] (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/filtrexx40.cgi?U+mystore+yvst4574+-L+ASTMF1624:06+/usr6/htdocs/astm.org/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/F1624.htm) - F1624-06 Standard Test Method for Measurement of Hydrogen Embrittlement Threshold in Steel by the Incremental Step Loading Technique. References: ASTM STP 543,"Hydrogen Embrittlement Testing" [3] (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/SOURCE_PAGES/STP543.htm?L+mystore+hsjb1846+1193986997)and ASTM STP 962,"Hydrogen Embrittlement: Prevention and Control." [4] (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/BOOKSTORE/PUBS/652.htm?E+mystore)



NACE TM0284-2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NACE_TM0284-2003&action=edit&redlink=1) (NACE International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NACE_International)) Resistance to Hydrogen-Induced Cracking
ISO 11114-4:2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ISO_11114-4:2005&action=edit&redlink=1) (ISO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Organization_for_Standardization))Te st methods for selecting metallic materials resistant to hydrogen embrittlement [5] (http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=41281&ICS1=23&ICS2=20&ICS3=30).
ASTM F1940-07a (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/F1940.htm?L+mystore+yvst4574+1196145312)- Standard Test Method for Process Control Verification to Prevent Hydrogen Embrittlement in Plated or Coated Fasteners
ASTM F519-06e2 (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/STORE/filtrexx40.cgi?U+mystore+yvst4574+-L+F519+/usr6/htdocs/astm.org/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/F519.htm)-Standard Test Method for Mechanical Hydrogen Embrittlement Evaluation of Plating/Coating Processes and Service Environments

I skipped the middle of this thread.(I assumed it was much like the beginning and end).So far I haven't see anyone that said they gambled the 80 bucks or so for one of these .I saw myth busters,I've heard the demonstration hoopla,I even had an employee that had one on his vehicle(gasser ,inoperative ,of course).But I can't believe no one on here has tried one for 5 or 6 tankfuls,just to see. Come on, we won't ride you too hard if it's snake oil.And if it works ,we'll all go buy one!

I skipped the middle of this thread.(I assumed it was much like the beginning and end).So far I haven't see anyone that said they gambled the 80 bucks or so for one of these .I saw myth busters,I've heard the demonstration hoopla,I even had an employee that had one on his vehicle(gasser ,inoperative ,of course).But I can't believe no one on here has tried one for 5 or 6 tankfuls,just to see. Come on, we won't ride you too hard if it's snake oil.And if it works ,we'll all go buy one!
I've been running mine for 4 months and mine is a 7 cell series application with 316 stainless steel - doubt you'll be able to pick one up like mine for $80 but good luck. I also utilize a pulse width modifier with an adjustable resistor to keep my amp draw at around 10-15 amps depending where I feel comfortable at the time - all this is controlled from the drivers seat.

Over those 4 months, I have noted a 15% increase in mileage on the highway and 10% in town. Of course I run higher amperage on the highway as well - go figure.

But it is attitudes such as yours: "Come on, we won't ride you too hard if it's snake oil.And if it works ,we'll all go buy one!" that makes me not want to share information with you or anyone else on this site. What do I care if you save at the pump? What are you to me? Me and people like me can do you leg work for you so you can save some $$$$? As tempting as that sounds, no thanks.

Here is a suggestion, instead of sitting here bashing people that are trying to make a difference, maybe you should encourage them and possibly do your own research on the matter. Of course that would mean turning off the "Mythbusters" and the idiot box known as your TV but what's the worst that can happen? You might miss an episode of American Idol or Dancing with the Stars but you might actually learn something :rolleyes:

Good luck.

C'mon Confuzed, chill a bit, and prove everyone wrong!!

And from the "Propane, Nitrous and Water Meth" Forum

Read this guys...............................

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=74b15465-2ebb-49e0-acb1-939c4bb13a28

C'mon Confuzed, chill a bit, and prove everyone wrong!!
Feel free to google "plasmatron" and "MIT" as it was developed by MIT.... Hopefully MIT is more than just "snake oil" :rolleyes:

Good video on youtube as well.

Ive been building these for about 4 years now. Ive gotten up to 26mpg in my jimmy but also down to 10mpg running it. I dont use it much now because I dont drive to far. I was driving 30 miles one way to school. Im going to build a new one soon. Im also trying to build a 3.5hp briggs 100% water fueled.

Will any of those fumes actually burn if you put a match to it. Just curious.

Please let me know.

***Breaking News***

A mysterious explosion ripped through a suburban neighborhood tonight, startling neighbors of the quiet man with the diesel truck.

*** back to Dancing with the Stars***

Will any of those fumes actually burn if you put a match to it. Just curious.

Please let me know.
Very much so...

***Breaking News***

A mysterious explosion ripped through a suburban neighborhood tonight, startling neighbors of the quiet man with the diesel truck.

*** back to Dancing with the Stars***

If I could build one to make that kind of gas I could run a engine off it real easy. :D

I have lost my hearing for a few hours.

Filling ballons is neat, who would think you could make a ballon float by using water.

This one made gas like crazy but it disolved in about 30min. That was $6 down the drain. I used salt water in this pic, it didnt make as many bubbles. I think it bubbled like crazy in the potasium hydroxide if I can remember right.

Without reprogramming for the addition of the hydrogen, the already optimized ECM may be working against your addition - as is the case in many of these attempts on a gasoline engine that uses the exhaust oxygen sensor to control fuel injection..

There is a solution for the oxygen sensor problem that works for *most* cars...called an EFIE. (Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer (EFIE) developed by George Wiseman of Eagle Research) Rather than waste everyone's time here, here is a link to info about how to deal with this problem in a gasser:
http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Tuning_for_mileage.html

You may be correct about the ECM...question is, what do you think it would do?

Cut back fuel? This is good...this is what we *want* to happen.

But if it would cut boost too, you're right...it may be counterproductive.

And if it messes with the timing, that could be bad OR good...depends.


I think that at worst, it would do nothing and just waste your money.
I doubt very seriously that in the small amounts we are talking about, it holds the potential for damage to the 6.5.

On the other hand, it very well may help, and help dramatically.

Only way to know is to try it.
Really looking forward to more subjective observations, like Confuzed's.



I'm a little confused by your "ignition during the compression stroke" issues, there Clip...<snip>...And it begs the issue of compressing the hydrogen added with the air charge BEFORE fuel is injected, so you have a high pressure high temperature mix of air and hydrogen before you introduce fuel, not vice versa.


Nope, sounds like you just restated what I said. I think that in a diesel, the hydrogen would ignite sometime late during the compression stroke of the piston.

However, I don't think that this early burning would manifest with the same type of damaging effects of preignition in a gasser, because the amount of fuel is too low, and occurs too late during the compression stroke.

What that injected fuel experiences, normally (without the introduction of HOH) is simply a charge of air, heated by compression.

With a HOH generator, what I think the diesel fuel would experience upon injection would be a very hot mixture of burned (or burning) hydrogen and air; MUCH hotter than just the compressed air that it experiences now. Increasing the speed of the burn, with all of the attendant benefits explained in the previous post.

I hope you're kidding me...:confused: Straight hydrogen combustion results in H2O. Brown's gas is just a BS name for hydrogen gas mixed with oxygen gas. Helium is a completely different element and doesn't enter into this topic.

Okie Dokie... as you can see I have a whole lot to learn still, thus my hestitancy to pursue the project until I have some of my blanks filled. I'm getting a few topics confused here looks like. I wasn't talking about just straight hydrogen, I was talking about hydrogen and oxygen mixture as a result of electrolysis from water.

So help me out here fer just a minute.... if you have 2 parts hydrogen, and 1 part oxygen in a gasous mixture, and then iginite, what is the resulting compound? Is it water, or Helium and something else? Or if the mixture is off a bit, you end up with other stuff? I'm still learnin here on this one.

as far as the plans go when you pm me...give me an email to send them too....

and yes DieselPro i have had flames from the gas..through a bubbler...had a flash back with out it and it made a good pop and blowed my gen. apart...it needs to go through a bubbler or check valve so you get no boom if theres a back fire...

So help me out here fer just a minute.... if you have 2 parts hydrogen, and 1 part oxygen in a gasous mixture, and then iginite, what is the resulting compound? Is it water, or Helium and something else? Or if the mixture is off a bit, you end up with other stuff? I'm still learnin here on this one.

Ive been confused on that too, Ive read up on it and Ive read burning HHO it turns back into water.

So help me out here fer just a minute.... if you have 2 parts hydrogen, and 1 part oxygen in a gasous mixture, and then iginite, what is the resulting compound? Is it water, or Helium and something else? Or if the mixture is off a bit, you end up with other stuff? I'm still learnin here on this one.

When you are burning hydrogen and oxygen together, you are combining atoms into a compound, water, or in this case water vapor, because of the heat of combustion. But the atoms stay atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.

To produce helium from hydrogen, you would have to have nuclear fusion...you are attaching electrons and protons to the original atom to make a whole different atom. To do this you need a linear accelerator. A linear accelerator shoots a beam of electrons, protons or ions at atoms at very high speed and converts one atom into a different atom altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_accelerator

Two miles in diameter is a little too big to fit under the hood....:rolleyes:

well at least micheal published mpg's and not just percentages(10 percent of 6 miles per gallon would not be much improvement).He also said he wasn't using it anymore,just like my former employee.I know that theory sometimes doesn't match real life.Confuzed, I really thought this entire forum was for sharing experiences so we didn't all need to make the same mistakes.

well at least micheal published mpg's and not just percentages(10 percent of 6 miles per gallon would not be much improvement).He also said he wasn't using it anymore,just like my former employee.I know that theory sometimes doesn't match real life.Confuzed, I really thought this entire forum was for sharing experiences so we didn't all need to make the same mistakes.
Tommy,

Sorry for my bad attitude, I guess I just let some people on this site just get to me.

I'd be willing to answer any questions you might have but only in PM. Again, sorry.

Here is a pic I have of a hydro booster that had a flashback. Thats why you need a bubbler or a check valve. I found out the hard way you need one. When the top of the one cell blew off it hit my hand. Good thing it did instead of my face or I probably would have had to go to the hospital.

That pic is reminiscent of the time in HS shop when we tried to rin the Tecumseh lawn mower on Nitrometh... not one our better ideas.

When you are burning hydrogen and oxygen together, you are combining atoms into a compound, water, or in this case water vapor, because of the heat of combustion. But the atoms stay atoms of hydrogen and oxygen.

To produce helium from hydrogen, you would have to have nuclear fusion...you are attaching electrons and protons to the original atom to make a whole different atom. To do this you need a linear accelerator. A linear accelerator shoots a beam of electrons, protons or ions at atoms at very high speed and converts one atom into a different atom altogether.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_accelerator

Two miles in diameter is a little too big to fit under the hood....:rolleyes:

Okay, that makes sense... 9th grade was almost 20 years ago now, thanks for fresh-ening up some of that older info.

So, the resulting compound is water.... now, back to joispoi's thing about hydrogen embrittlement... we are still fighting this yes with this recipe? Or does the embritlement only happen at high temperatures? For example... does an EGR "S" engine that dilutes intake air with exhaust to reduce internal cylinder temperatures to prevent NOx from forming less likely to suffer from embritlement vs an "F" non-EGR engine?

I'm just throwing questions out here.

Here is a pic I have of a hydro booster that had a flashback. Thats why you need a bubbler or a check valve. I found out the hard way you need one. When the top of the one cell blew off it hit my hand. Good thing it did instead of my face or I probably would have had to go to the hospital.

Now, I'm not saying that having a check valve of sorts, is a bad idea, or no good, but I'm just askin, do you think there would be that sort of problem with a turbo sucking it in from the air box. Or any vehicle really... Just askin.

Okay, that makes sense... 9th grade was almost 20 years ago now, thanks for fresh-ening up some of that older info.

So, the resulting compound is water.... now, back to joispoi's thing about hydrogen embrittlement... we are still fighting this yes with this recipe? Or does the embritlement only happen at high temperatures? For example... does an EGR "S" engine that dilutes intake air with exhaust to reduce internal cylinder temperatures to prevent NOx from forming less likely to suffer from embritlement vs an "F" non-EGR engine?

I'm just throwing questions out here.
To the best of my knowledge and memory (which is much longer than yours):eek: "hydrogen embrittlement" only occurs if the parent metal is in a molten state, such as in welding. I may be wrong. Leo

Now, I'm not saying that having a check valve of sorts, is a bad idea, or no good, but I'm just askin, do you think there would be that sort of problem with a turbo sucking it in from the air box. Or any vehicle really... Just askin.

Thats why I didnt have a bubbler on is I had trouble sucking to much air and getting bubbler water sucked up. I would use a check valve just to be safe. I had a small hole so the engine sucked air through the cell sucking the gas with it. While I was cranking the engine over I put my finger over the hole and POP. I still cant move that finger, it wont bend. Ive been doing this for 4 years and never had a explosion like that but I never had 2 cells hooked together. I dont know what happend to my finger in that split second but it sure hurt like hell.

now, back to joispoi's thing about hydrogen embrittlement... we are still fighting this yes with this recipe? Or does the embritlement only happen at high temperatures?

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement

Hydrogen embrittlement (or hydrogen grooving) is the process by which various metals, most importantly high-strength steel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel), become brittle and crack following exposure to hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen).

The mechanism begins with lone hydrogen atoms diffusing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion) through the metal. When these hydrogen atoms re-combine in minuscule voids of the metal matrix to form hydrogen molecules, they create pressure from inside the cavity they are in. This pressure can increase to levels where the metal has reduced ductility and tensile strength, up to the point where it cracks open ("Hydrogen Induced Cracking", or HIC). High-strength and low-alloy steels, aluminium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), and titanium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium) alloys are most susceptible. Steel with a ultimate tensile strength of less than 1000 MPa or hardness of less than 30 HRC are not generally considered susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement.

Hydrogen embrittlement can happen during various manufacturing operations or operational use, anywhere where the metal comes in contact with atomic or molecular hydrogen. Processes which can lead to this include cathodic protection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection), phosphating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphating), pickling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickling_%28metal%29), and electroplating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroplating). A special case is arc welding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_welding), in which the hydrogen is released from moisture (for example in the coating of the welding electrodes; to minimize this, special low-hydrogen electrodes are used for welding high-strength steels). Other mechanisms of introduction of hydrogen into metal are galvanic corrosion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion), chemical reactions of metal with acids, or with other chemicals (notably hydrogen sulfide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide) in sulfide stress cracking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfide_stress_cracking), or SSC, a process of importance for the oil and gas industries).

As was already pointed out a couple of times, Hydrogen embrittlement is only an issue in very high thermal regimes (ie welding) or in the case of catalytic reactions (ie as a corrosive sulfide surface reaction.

Lone hydrogen atoms (H) are unstable as hell and do not normally exist in a non-ionic state. Hydrogen molecules (H2) are much more stable and are not apt to migrate and react with a non-electron-donating metal... which means that in the absence of a galvanic or cathodic reaction, or in the absence of melting-point temps which will cause the iron to become catalytically reactive, Hydrogen embrittlement is not an issue.

Background research from phoning son-in-law... journeyman welder ... he asked the other guys in the shop and got the same opinion from all of them.

They also commented that Hydrogen embrittlement induced by pickling or cathodics can be 'baked' out of the steel once the current flow or associated catalyst is removed, which would seem to indicate that this is not an issue in this circumstance.

They also commented that Hydrogen embrittlement induced by pickling or cathodics can be 'baked' out of the steel once the current flow or associated catalyst is removed, which would seem to indicate that this is not an issue in this circumstance.

Reading Further:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_embrittlement
If the metal has not yet started to crack, the condition can be reversed by removing the hydrogen source and causing the hydrogen within the metal to diffuse out - possibly at elevated temperatures. Susceptible alloys, after chemical or electrochemical treatments where hydrogen is produced, are often subjected to heat treatment in order to remove absorbed hydrogen.

In the case of welding, often pre- and post-heating the metal is applied to allow the hydrogen to diffuse out before it can cause any damage. This is specifically done with high-strength steels and low alloy steels such as the chrome/molybdenum/vanadium alloys. Due to the time needed to re-combine hydrogen atoms to the harmful hydrogen molecules, hydrogen cracking due to welding can occur over 24 hours after the welding operation is completed.

Well, did anyone hook one of these up yet?

Rob :)

Well, did anyone hook one of these up yet?

Rob :)

Id like to see if anyone get anything from it on a 6.5. I have ran a 4.5 brigg on one running it on 50% stale gas and 50% hho.

just came across this thread and im not gonna read through the whole thing but my dad has had one on his 6.5 n/a van since last fall. he says he has gained any where from 3-5 mpgs where he was normally getting 12mpgs. he did alot of research before temping and talking to a buddy who did one to a 6.5 turbo. he is still running his first setup and says it could be refined a lot to be more effecient. he says the motor is mroe quiet and runs stronger than before. if you do your research it is actually a easy and stable setup with alot of potential. so far his buddy has been running a crappy setup for over a year with no visible side effects. :cool:

btw ill try to get him to post up but i cant garauntee it....

Thanks, DB... long time no see, amigo. Is the Big Bad Blazer still screaming along?

Can you get details on your Dad's setup? Specs, pictures, that sort of thing?

lol what little i can afford to drive it, its doing ok, ran into some tranny issues with it the other day. anywho i will try and get some but it may take a little. he doesnt like to give up his info easily;) but he is very pleased with the out come.

...Lone hydrogen atoms (H) are unstable as hell and do not normally exist in a non-ionic state....

Jim -

I think that you meant "do not normally exist in an ionic state". And you're right, as we don't hear much about H+ ions floating around. They have a terribly high affinity (for spare electrons)...

Regards,

LOL... sorry Golds... I guess that whole proton-donor Bronsted-Lowry thing gets away on me some days...

I have been researching these devices but have not found very many results on actual increases to the MPG other than a few that have only driven a few miles.

I did fin a website with plans to construct.
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt10.html

I am going to build one and try it out but not on my truck. I have a couple of older cars that i will try it on first.

Let you know in few months how it turned out.

I am going to build one and try it out but not on my truck. I have a couple of older cars that i will try it on first.

Let you know in few months how it turned out.

I think it works best on a rig with a ecm and oxygen sensor so control air/fuel ratio. Computer will give the engine less gas.

I think it works best on a rig with a ecm and oxygen sensor so control air/fuel ratio. Computer will give the engine less gas.


Actually based on what I've been reading, I believe they work better on applications without ECM & O2 sensors because these try to maintain predetermined emmisions. With the HHO boosters the emmisions are reduced significantly due to the more effecient fuel charge burn so the ECM thinks the engine is running too lean and actually adds more fuel which defeats the purpose. To overcome this there are add-on electronics that actually trick the ECM into thinking everything is fine.

I've done alot of reading on these devices lately and plan on building one for my Cummins powered motorhome. My wife works for the local school system in the transportation dept. and they are also investigating these HHO boosters for their bus fleet.

Actually based on what I've been reading, I believe they work better on applications without ECM & O2 sensors because these try to maintain predetermined emmisions. With the HHO boosters the emmisions are reduced significantly due to the more effecient fuel charge burn so the ECM thinks the engine is running too lean and actually adds more fuel which defeats the purpose. To overcome this there are add-on electronics that actually trick the ECM into thinking everything is fine.

I've done alot of reading on these devices lately and plan on building one for my Cummins powered motorhome. My wife works for the local school system in the transportation dept. and they are also investigating these HHO boosters for their bus fleet.

I would think a newer diesel with electronics would work good with a booster. Ive read about the ecm problems your talking about but thought that was on newer cars. I think OBD1 is the best but I could be wrong.

I would think a newer diesel with electronics would work good with a booster. Ive read about the ecm problems your talking about but thought that was on newer cars. I think OBD1 is the best but I could be wrong.

I may be wrong about diesels since most of what I was reading was referring to gasoline engines. They do mention that some ECM's can learn over time to work with the boosters. I suspect these were the earlier vehicles with less sophisticated electronic controls.

I think it works best on a rig with a ecm and oxygen sensor so control air/fuel ratio. Computer will give the engine less gas.


It will be a little while before I build it. busy schedule with a wedding and boating but I plan to have i installed in August. My sons have a couple early 90 vehicles that i will check it on first.

I know I don't have a 6.5 any more but this forum helped me out so much when I did I keep checking in and help others when i can with the info I gained

is this a kit i can buy and install it or what?

is this a kit i can buy and install it or what?
look for the smacks booster, they have one you can buy or build your self

There is a hydroxy group in yahoo with related information.
PM or email me for the link.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Hydroxy/

After 118 posts, no one has posted any data on this. Several have made summary posts of better economy. Surely there are some who have installed these systems and have long term fuel consumption records? if so, i would LOVE to see them.

jb

me too

After 118 posts, no one has posted any data on this. Several have made summary posts of better economy. Surely there are some who have installed these systems and have long term fuel consumption records? if so, i would LOVE to see them.

jb

When I was running mine I was all over the place. Without it I would get around 18, with it I was anywhere from 10mpg to 26mpg. One time, 2 or 3 days is a row it seems to drop my mpgs. Im not sure what it was, may not of had anything to do with the booster. I never did better then 26mpg best I could tell. Most of the time with it I was getting 18-22mpg. On average maybe 3mpg. But that was a pretty crapy cell I had.

So, if this does work, is it a Summer only affair? I doubt the booster would function with it's water frozen solid.

After 118 posts, no one has posted any data on this. Several have made summary posts of better economy. Surely there are some who have installed these systems and have long term fuel consumption records? if so, i would LOVE to see them.

jb

as i stated before my dad along with his buddy have both been running them for almost a year. my dads n/a 6.5 has improved anywhere from 3-6mpgs and the turbo 6.5 averaged about 5 mpgs better. as far as the winter thing i believe they both ran a mxture of alcohol but im not 100% on that. it all depends on the design and efficientcy people!!! crappy design equals little gain where as you take your time and build a really nice one and big gains are made:cool:

as i stated before my dad along with his buddy have both been running them for almost a year. my dads n/a 6.5 has improved anywhere from 3-6mpgs and the turbo 6.5 averaged about 5 mpgs better. as far as the winter thing i believe they both ran a mxture of alcohol but im not 100% on that. it all depends on the design and efficientcy people!!! crappy design equals little gain where as you take your time and build a really nice one and big gains are made:cool:


No offense meant, but my background is engineering and I have had over 20 years of statistical process control / improvement and 6 sigma on top of that. The standard I hold to is pretty high, but I think that if a person writes down mileage, date and gallons from the time a truck is bought and in the middle somewhere they add a mechanism that can increase mpg's --> well that should be easy to spot and have a high confidence level that the change is not due to pure chance. I know a fair number of folks (myself included) track fuel consumption and even things like maintenance done. Again, no offense, but when process experiments are run the expected outcomes are intentionally hidden from the operators of the process. Especially, from the ones measuring the response. It's been shown time and time again that the responses are different when the person measuring it, expects it to be big (or small or blue or what ever).

So, to repeat, it would be real helpful to see a data set like that for me to be able to rationalize the change this gizmo is reputed to make.

Ideally, at the next dyno days some one will have one of these gizmos and will be able to do some back to back tests showing hp, torque, fuel consumption, exhaust gases, exhaust temps, amps to the gizmo correlated to the dyno readout, etc.

One of the prior posts in this thread included a link to hydrofuelsolutions.com. I followed it and found this:

There is NO guarentee that your vehicle will see gains from a HHO generator due to driving habits and the way the computer on your vehicle might or might not work with the unit.

No guarentee to fitness for a particular purpose.
There is NO guarentee that your vehicle will see gains from a HHO generator due to driving habits and the way the computer on your vehicle might or might not work with the unit.

No guarantee to fitness for a particular purpose.



Wading past all the legalisms, that means the device you buy from them may or may not provide any gains and in fact may or may not even make gases. Not a real ringing endorsement (asside from the mis-spelling of the word "guarantee")!

jb

So, if this does work, is it a Summer only affair? I doubt the booster would function with it's water frozen solid.

You just put some alcohol in, I never did on mine bacause I would take it in the house at night. In the day it stayed warm enough in my car.

No offense meant, but my background is engineering and I have had over 20 years of statistical process control / improvement and 6 sigma on top of that. The standard I hold to is pretty high, but I think that if a person writes down mileage, date and gallons from the time a truck is bought and in the middle somewhere they add a mechanism that can increase mpg's --> well that should be easy to spot and have a high confidence level that the change is not due to pure chance. I know a fair number of folks (myself included) track fuel consumption and even things like maintenance done. Again, no offense, but when process experiments are run the expected outcomes are intentionally hidden from the operators of the process. Especially, from the ones measuring the response. It's been shown time and time again that the responses are different when the person measuring it, expects it to be big (or small or blue or what ever).

So, to repeat, it would be real helpful to see a data set like that for me to be able to rationalize the change this gizmo is reputed to make.

Ideally, at the next dyno days some one will have one of these gizmos and will be able to do some back to back tests showing hp, torque, fuel consumption, exhaust gases, exhaust temps, amps to the gizmo correlated to the dyno readout, etc.



i dont mean to sound like a dick but i truely think some people just really over think this stuff. the average joe doesnt have the time to compromise all this data that most want. i know for a fact my dad can bearly surf the internet but when it comes to fixing something there is nothing he cant do. anywho, i know there are variables and ways of seeing gains but he went purely off his mileage gain and even admitted his first prototype didnt produce that well. instead of asking over and over for someone to produce a data sheet go do the research that is extremely easy to find and i know that cause my dad found it and he is so computer illiterate. i think some of ya just need to quit over thinkin this stuff, there are prototypes and instructions all over youtube and other websites. the 6.5 is one of the easiest engines around to do this too since it cant backfire and has no o2 sensors

I am seriously considering putting one of these in. Here's my thumbnail analysis:
An onboard water electrolysis unit will produce H2 and O2 at a fairly inefficient rate, but it will do it.
There is a significant amount of energy that is expended out the tailpipe in the form of unburned fuel. Everytime we see black smoke or a haze coming out of the tailpipe, this is visible evidence of unburnt fuel.
It seems obvious that if we introduced pure oxygen into the intake, it would improve the combustion.
What would hydrogen do if injected in the intake? It seems to me that with a mixture of hydrogen, pure oxygen, and ambient air, that the hydrogen, being combustible, would start to combust some time during the compression stroke. It's likely too little hydrogen to actually run the vehicle, and it's likely too little hydrogen to do cause any significant damage due to knocking - which in a diesel is unheard of under normal conditions. What would likely happen is that the hydrogen would start to burn during the compression stroke, but without addition of diesel would likely not do much at all in terms of either damage or extra power output.
At the injection of diesel event, the atomized diesel would encounter a weak but fast flame-front already in the chamber, and this would likely serve to cause a much more rapid (due to the hydrogen) and complete (due to the extra oxygen) burn during the power stroke.
Therefore, you would produce MORE usable power at any given IP setting, and you would be able to do more work with less fuel than before, due to the improvements in combustion.I think it's a reasonable enough theory that it bears some experimentation. I realize that the energy that goes into the electrolysis unit would be far greater than the energy value of the H2 coming out, but if that H2 and O2 can dramatically improve the combustion efficiency (which is what is claimed), then the gains from the greater combustion efficiency would be greater than the extra drag on the alternator, thus making the expenditure worth it. Just think - if your truck gets 17 MPG, then a 40% increase would be 23.8 MPG. If you run your truck 15,000 miles/ year, this means you would save 252 gallons. At $5/gallon, this would save you $1260.50, and your fuel bill for the year would be $3151 instead of $4411.76 This would be the equivalent of dropping your price per gallon to $3.57. That's worth it to me to do some experimentation. Rob :)

I know you are hopeful, TurboTahoe, but you have a slight logic error in your argument. We do not expend a "significant" amount of energy out of the tailpipe as FUEL. The internal combustion engine is not extremely THERMALLY efficient, but it is very FUEL efficient, especially a computer controlled diesel engine. BLACK smoke is BURNED fuel, it means you are overfueling, not failing to burn it. You've tried to make a reasonable argument, but unfortunately you've fallen for the "pseudo science" of the H2 hucksters that seems to make it seem like such a good idea.

I know you are hopeful, TurboTahoe, but you have a slight logic error in your argument. We do not expend a "significant" amount of energy out of the tailpipe as FUEL. The internal combustion engine is not extremely THERMALLY efficient, but it is very FUEL efficient, especially a computer controlled diesel engine. BLACK smoke is BURNED fuel, it means you are overfueling, not failing to burn it. You've tried to make a reasonable argument, but unfortunately you've fallen for the "pseudo science" of the H2 hucksters that seems to make it seem like such a good idea.

Hmm. Are you sure? Isn't black smoke evidence of incomplete combustion? Isn't it essentially particles of matter suspended in the air?

If diesel were undergoing complete combustion, wouldn't it emit only CO2 and water vapor?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question43.htm

Doesn't black smoke mean that we are overfueling AND failing to burn it all?

How is that psuedo science?

Thanks,

Rob :)

black diesel soot is partially burned diesel fuel, as in it was ignited but not completely burned cause it was pushed out the exhaust before it could completely burn. think of it as throwing a log on a fire then extinguishing it before it was burned to its fullest.

These HHO generator gains of 3-6 mpg can be doubled with the use of a Fuel Optimiser hydrodynamic magnet. Further gains of 15-19 mpg can be achieved with the use of the Tornado Air Management system, throw in some Slick 50 and poof, 65 mpg duramax. Take that Prius driver.

Sorry about being a crank, but c'mon guys. These devices have been around in one form or another for many years. Check out Snopes for the 50 mpg carburetor.

I hope I'm wrong, but I haven't seen anything to convince me these are more than just the scam of the month.

This is something I will definitely try once I get my transmission back in. But I will be using it in a turbo application...Would simply utilizing the hydrogen from the electrolysis reaction save me from the recombining O2 and H2 making water in my turbo? Or is it the oxygen that is catalyzing diesel combustion? Or is it Browns gas all together that is causing the MPG increase? :confused:

I am getting into this conversation late but I have been reading up on HHO (HydrOxy, Brown’s Gas, etc.) injectors for about a year now. There are people and designs out there that are not very good in one way or another, so it is important that you investigate before you buy. I have just finished making a “Smack” design electrolysis unit. One of the best websites for info on this and many other alternative fuel products is PESWiki.com
This is the link to the Hydrogen injection page, which covers many different variants:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency_Hydrogen_Injection (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency_Hydrogen_Injection)
If you want info go and read.

It is also important to note that the quality systems are being sold mainly for commercial trucks because it costs a lot to make a unit that produces large volumes of HHO gas (ex.1200 liters/hr for the Kong model http://www.gethydropower.com/products_kong.html (http://www.gethydropower.com/products_kong.html)) The reason for the expense is the amount of stainless steel that is need to make the electrodes. (As we all know metal is getting more and more expensive) You have to use stainless steel because it is sitting in a bath of alkali. The surface area of the electrodes has a direct connection to the gas output. So the jar with the stainless steel wire as an electrode will produce HHO but a very small amount. Probably only enough for a small engine (Geo Metro).

This brings me to my first point. The electrodes are submerged in electrolyte and water not just water. Water does conduct electricity but has higher resistance then water mixed with an electrolyte, as in a car battery. In the production of HHO it has been found that potassium hydroxide (Caustic Potash) or sodium hydroxide (lye) are the best electrolytes to use because there is no negative byproducts produced in the process and they produce more HHO than others. In this type of unit the only thing that is lost overtime is the water itself as it splits into 2 H atoms and 1O atom. Therefore you have to add distilled water over a period of time.

So how does it help increase fuel economy? It does in more than one way.
First it carries pure oxygen into the cylinder to mix with the diesel or gas and help improve combustion. I know everyone out there will agree that more oxygen will help cause a better burn up to a point. We could strap a bottle of oxygen to our vehicle and feed it into the intake but it is more convenient and cheaper to make it on demand. Another advantage is that it is putting a highly flammable gas (Hydrogen) into the cylinder to mix with the Oxygen and another liquid fuel that is in the process of becoming a gas (diesel, or gas). We all know that a liquid does not burn and that diesel or gas has to become a gas and mix with the air before it ignites. The unburned fuel comes from liquid fuel that has not completely changed to gas before the ignition in the cylinder and so then does not have time to burn before the exhaust valve opens, and then gets scrubbed out by the CAT. This is where auto ignition temp, octane, and BTU come in. These charts taken from fcm01r0.pdf (do a google copy and paste file name and read)



Fuel


Autoignition Temperature

Hydrogen
1085 ºF (585 ºC)
Methane
1003 ºF (540 ºC)
Propane
914 ºF (490 ºC)
Methanol
725 ºF (385 ºC)
Gasoline
450 to 900 ºF (230 to 480 ºC)




Fuel


Octane Number

Hydrogen
130+ (lean burn)
Methane
125
Propane
105
Octane
100
Gasoline
87
Diesel
30




Fuel


Higher Heating Value (at 25 ºC and 1 atm)


Lower Heating Value (at 25 ºC and 1 atm)

Hydrogen
61,000 Btu/lb (141.86 kJ/g)
51,500 Btu/lb (119.93 kJ/g)
Methane
24,000 Btu/lb (55.53 kJ/g)
21,500 Btu/lb (50.02 kJ/g)
Propane
21,650 Btu/lb (50.36 kJ/g)
19,600 Btu/lb (45.6 kJ/g)
Gasoline
20,360 Btu/lb (47.5 kJ/g)
19,000 Btu/lb (44.5 kJ/g)
Diesel
19,240 Btu/lb (44.8 kJ/g)
18,250 Btu/lb (42.5 kJ/g)
Methanol
8,580 Btu/lb (19.96 kJ/g)
7,760 Btu/lb (18.05 kJ/g)


Auto ignition temperature is the point at which a gas will ignite from heat. As you can see from the charts that are above the temp at which hydrogen ignites is higher than gasoline by 185 degrees. So the HHO gas that is entering the cylinder will not ignite until the sparkplug fires, unless the inside cylinder temp is over 1085 deg. (in which case the gas would have ignited) Because hydrogen burns much faster than gas or diesel it helps to vaporize the fuel and mix it with the oxygen in the early part of the power stroke, allowing more of the diesel/gas to burn before the exhaust stroke.

The final aid HHO provides is that after it burns, it turns to H2O (water) and expands as it absorbs heat and turns into vapor, providing some pressure, reduction in heat, and a steam cleaning effect inside the cylinder. This is the same reason that people use water-methanol injection.

As to “why the auto makers don’t add these to production cars”? In addition to those reasons stated before…Auto makers are in the business to make money. And until recently there has been NO demand from consumers in the U.S. for better fuel economy. I read an article on MSN.com less than two months ago that said a gallop poll of new car buyers in the U.S. said that fuel economy was #7 on the list of things they look for in a new car.

Interesting link related to this discussion:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/EileenTang.shtml

Sincerely,

Rob :)

So, has anyone else installed one?

-Rob :)

I might do one later this summer. I have space available under the hood and the things don't look that expensive to build. And it would give me something to do with some free time. I can sort of see both sides to the theoretical argument. On the pro side I can see ways around some of the anti arguments. On the anti side, they don't really seem to put out a lot of gas. On the pro side, if you aren't trying to run the engine on Hydrogen but just modify the burn of the diesel you might not need much.

Check out this link. There IS research being done on this...

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=74823&isnumber=2490

Rob :)

It's not a 6.5 but this guy is claiming 40% increase on a 7.3 PSD

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_jlv0_m7834

My brother's son's friend of a cousin tried one and he is getting 40 mpg. Just joking.

My nephew did put one on his 1999 Ford 4x4 pickup. Spent $1,000.00. The kit came with somthing to shut off the oxygen sensor, or change the signal, a heater for the fuel line, a program to change the fuel ratio, and the unit to make the hydrogen.
He was getting 14 to 15 mpg on trips from Ks. City, Ks. to Russell Kansas on I 70. The last trip with the hydrogen boost he got 23. I drove it last Saturday pulling a trailer and it had lots of power. Now before you get all excited, this pickup is run on gasoline and the person that sold him the unit said the diesel pickups don't improve as much as gasoline ones.

i am not endorsing this system or manufacturer just posting a video on how HHO helps fuel milelage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_J_D0NS0BE

I won't be building my system for a couple of weeks but will post results when I have them.

So, has anyone else installed one?

-Rob :)
I'm installing one this weekend on my Burb. The unit is the hydrosuper2 and I must say it is professionally built to last. I am going to install in a temporary rig in the cabin for I can't find any place anywhere near under the hood. I bought the double unit which is a large piece of equipment and mounting a definite issue. I do know that Cummins 5.9 people (certain years: certain DIJ pumps) are routinely claiming in excess of a 35% increase, some saying just under 50%. I haven't hear of any 6.5 with one installed, but the 6.5 makes the profile of those that do get good results: no O2 sensor, normally no MAF sensor (3/4 tons) and not a common rail pulsed injector system. My Tahoe has a MAF, but this shouldn't present a major problem.s It seems the result vary widely vehicle to vehicle based on the ECU program. A mechanic on the hydrosuper2 site near to me will charge $500 to $600 for a professional install. I'm doing the temporary to make sure it works before paying that.
I'll report my findings

Is it safe to put it in the cab? Hydrogen is explosive you know.

Yes, I too can affirm this deal works! My brother in law and his brother (both who I know very well) have big diesel semi's. One of them has this system, he went from 5.5 mpg to 6.9 on his big diesel rig...fully loaded of course as a trucker does.

Ok I have been reading this thread for awhile now. As most of us are driving truck that have a few years on them and miles as well. Mine is 14 yrs old and has 167,000 miles on it.:think:

What about the wear factor? If this HHO system is noted for cleaning up internal engine parts. What is going to happen?

Having been around the block a few time and paying attention to my elders. There use to be some of them that would flush their engines with diesel or kerosene every other oil change. Supposedly it removed deposits and gunk from the internal engine components. But if this was done on an engine that had a bunch of mile and hadn’t been done through the life of the engine it would loosen up all the build up and cause problems with internal components.

Any ideas on this? not trying to be confrontational just curious.

Ok I have been reading this thread for awhile now. As most of us are driving truck that have a few years on them and miles as well. Mine is 14 yrs old and has 167,000 miles on it.:think:

What about the wear factor? If this HHO system is noted for cleaning up internal engine parts. What is going to happen?

Having been around the block a few time and paying attention to my elders. There use to be some of them that would flush their engines with diesel or kerosene every other oil change. Supposedly it removed deposits and gunk from the internal engine components. But if this was done on an engine that had a bunch of mile and hadn’t been done through the life of the engine it would loosen up all the build up and cause problems with internal components.

Any ideas on this? not trying to be confrontational just curious.

From what i understand, it will not clean inside the crank case. I have read it will clean the deposits on your pistons, cylinders and valves and heads but not inside where the oil is.
I put a SMACK design on my truck last weekend but it is to early to tell any results. It bubbles and it is making something but i dont know what it is making. Maybe i should hold a match to the output tube but i'm afraid of blowing myself up.haha

From what i understand, it will not clean inside the crank case. I have read it will clean the deposits on your pistons, cylinders and valves and heads but not inside where the oil is.
I put a SMACK design on my truck last weekend but it is to early to tell any results. It bubbles and it is making something but i dont know what it is making. Maybe i should hold a match to the output tube but i'm afraid of blowing myself up.haha

Not a good idea, for sure. It will flash back:eek2:. Unless you have a suppressor on it. :coolio:

Not a good idea, for sure. It will flash back:eek2:. Unless you have a suppressor on it. :coolio:


It will have some power behind it when it goes off. Ive been working on a engine completely powered by hho so I try to make alot of gas. PVC pipe is mean stuff but that hho gas will tear it up if it ignites.

My dad put his homemade version of a HHO generator on my Mom's 2006 VW Turbo Diesel, last i hear he was getting 75Miles to the gallon and still just getting started, a little Armor All, water and a electric current and you have Hydrogen, not enough to explode, it justs help your fuel burn better and cleaner. He made his from old glass mason jars with a plastic top, a toggle switch inside to turn it off and on, and he's running tops.

I experimented with a home built HHO Booster installed on my 05 LLY CC/SB Auto.

First test was 111 miles, 75 degree dry weather, light wind, normal hills on paved highway. Truck was empty and driven at 55 mph I am all stock except for a Diblo Sport tuner that was set at the 65 hp . I recorded the miliage at 26-mpg, and used about 6 oz of water in the first hour of driving. On trip back I blew the seals of the HHO Booster,

The truck stock runing under the same conditions gets around 22 mpg average hwy.

Pulling a 13,000lb 5th wheel and tuned with a 40hp program, with the same basic weather and dirving conditons I got between 11-12 mpg weather I used the HHO Booster or not. I have to redesign the HHO Booster to be more consistant with my experment. I did not experiance any problems with the truck while testing. I don't know much about diesel's yet still learning,
Question. Do these trucks have an Oxygen sensor or Pcv valve.

I'm surprised you got any increase in mpg without modding your O2 sensor. HHO acts as a catalyst to completely burn the diesel(or other fuel)....in doing so the O2 sensor should see a lean condition and dump more fuel. My truck didn't come with a O2 sensor so I can't say it happened to me personally but from everything I've read thats what will happen. There is a simple mod (with less than $20.00 in parts from Radio Shack) that you can put inline on the O2 sensor.
I got a 21.5 percent increase with my first magdrive. I'm still on the first tank with the bigger (triple brick) model. Will post my mileage in my garage in a few days when I fill up again.
Whoever it was a few threads back that was talking about lighting off the HHO - you can do it safely if you put the hose in a cup of water and light the bubbles.

I'm surprised you got any increase in mpg without modding your O2 sensor. HHO acts as a catalyst to completely burn the diesel(or other fuel)....in doing so the O2 sensor should see a lean condition and dump more fuel. My truck didn't come with a O2 sensor so I can't say it happened to me personally but from everything I've read thats what will happen. There is a simple mod (with less than $20.00 in parts from Radio Shack) that you can put inline on the O2 sensor.
I got a 21.5 percent increase with my first magdrive. I'm still on the first tank with the bigger (triple brick) model. Will post my mileage in my garage in a few days when I fill up again.
Whoever it was a few threads back that was talking about lighting off the HHO - you can do it safely if you put the hose in a cup of water and light the bubbles.
just to see if it would, i filled up a rubber glove and put it in a paper bag and set it on fire. it sounded like a M-80 going off. I finally got my HHO booster to stop leaking. before i was getting 3 to 4 miles per gallon more. now i don't know what it is because my optical sensor is AFU. My truck runs ok but not like it should.

just to see if it would, i filled up a rubber glove and put it in a paper bag and set it on fire. it sounded like a M-80 going off. I finally got my HHO booster to stop leaking. before i was getting 3 to 4 miles per gallon more. now i don't know what it is because my optical sensor is AFU. My truck runs ok but not like it should.


Fill a baloon with hho and it will float. :D Then hang a strip of masking tape about 12" long and set the end on fire and let it float away.