Anyone know about this, seen video on utube. A guy put is on his 05 2500 max. Wondering if it worked.
Thanks

Have the link?

TNHybrids.com

Here it is.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RZV5I_TFy1I

This is a better one.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vaJEhrUFCZU

Where can you get one? Do they work??

niether video said anything.....what a joke....good way to seperate dummies from their money I guess.

JB

niether video said anything.....what a joke....good way to seperate dummies from their money I guess.

JB

x2

Has anyone tried one of these kits yet???

i don't even understand waht they are doing?!?!?!?!?

Has anyone ever tryed this? It seems like a hoax but would be interested in a third party's review.

More of this HHO stuff. Untell some reputable source tests it, I will remain a sceptic. The principle is that an onboard hydrogen generator is used to produce hydrogen, supply it to the intake, and get better milage. To do that and be effective, it would have to really improve the combustion process to overcome the energy it takes to create the hydrogen.

And why don't we here about this wonderfull system all over the cable news networks?

Here is a link

http://www.umpquaenergy.com/

It's really not that expensive, I wonder how much better mileage we would get.

I posted a question on here about a week ago and nothing. It doesn't seem to be very popular. My father in law got refered to a small system about a week ago and the guy had used one on his car, but it was gas, and i think it was carburated.....he swore it worked. He said he got about 20% better mileage. I would try this on my truck if it wasn't my daily driver. I did do some research also, and found a guy that put it on his diesel vw? anyways, he said it was a very noticeable difference because it cleaned up all the carbon in the system and he swore the car performed better, but when he put the figures on paper, the car actually used more fuel. His reason was that the O2 sensors pick up on the more oxygen and in turn told the computer to put in more fuel. He also said that he wouldnt use the system everday, but would keep the system on his car to periodically clean the system. I want to hear from someone a little closer to home, like on here, before i try it. Do a search on ebay for a hydrogen generator and there are hundreds of them.....you can learn a lot......if its true!

I posted a question on here about a week ago and nothing. It doesn't seem to be very popular. My father in law got refered to a small system about a week ago and the guy had used one on his car, but it was gas, and i think it was carburated.....he swore it worked. He said he got about 20% better mileage. I would try this on my truck if it wasn't my daily driver. I did do some research also, and found a guy that put it on his diesel vw? anyways, he said it was a very noticeable difference because it cleaned up all the carbon in the system and he swore the car performed better, but when he put the figures on paper, the car actually used more fuel. His reason was that the O2 sensors pick up on the more oxygen and in turn told the computer to put in more fuel. He also said that he wouldnt use the system everday, but would keep the system on his car to periodically clean the system. I want to hear from someone a little closer to home, like on here, before i try it. Do a search on ebay for a hydrogen generator and there are hundreds of them.....you can learn a lot......if its true!


Hmmmm let's see, is that a reasonable reason? More O2?

These systems produce about 1 to 1.5 liters of gas per minute. (Claimed - no verification). At 2000 rpm freeway speed and 0psi turbo boost how much air does the duramax suck down? 6.6 l of gas every 2 revolutions. So 2000 rpm * 6.6l /2 = 6600 liter of air every minute.

The system puts out 1 liter of gas total (you can multiply answer if you want more gas...). The gas is 2 H's for every O as water is H2O, so the gas is 66%H2 and 33% O2. So the system puts out 0.33 liter of extra oxygen.

Air is 20% oxygen.

So there is 6600 liters of air * 20% oxygen with the system off or 330 liters of pure O2 going into the intake every minute with the system off. With the system on, it jumps to an astounding 330.33 liter of oxygen.

Or an enrichment of 0.33 / 330 = 0.001 or 0.1% enrichment. Big whoop.

On a total gas basis there is 6600 liters of air. And 0.66 liter of H2.
Or a hydrogen enrichment of 0.01%. If you think that 0.01% more burnable hydrogen is going to change the economy of the engine by 20% --> whoa. Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly. That would be an impact ratio of 2000:1. Diesels are already the most efficient internal combustion engines widely available. Remember, the freaking fuel is providing about 10 million times more hydrogen than the gas. It's freaking hydrocarbon fuel we burn!


Oh yeah, where do I sign up to get one of these systems?
jb

If I follow correctly, you have a point.....like I said all of this is hear say as far as I'm concerned, this is all a part of doing my homework.......anything to save on fuel.

I think you might be right but I say someone install one of these kits and tell everyone the results. You can try all day to convince me with math but until someone tries it and shows if it works or not I will remain undecided if it works or not.

If I can get some money together I will get one and try it to see if Its a bunch of C#@ or if it works. Any one want to pitch in With some $$$ LOL

Hmmmm let's see, is that a reasonable reason? More O2?

These systems produce about 1 to 1.5 liters of gas per minute. (Claimed - no verification). At 2000 rpm freeway speed and 0psi turbo boost how much air does the duramax suck down? 6.6 l of gas every 2 revolutions. So 2000 rpm * 6.6l /2 = 6600 liter of air every minute.

The system puts out 1 liter of gas total (you can multiply answer if you want more gas...). The gas is 2 H's for every O as water is H2O, so the gas is 66%H2 and 33% O2. So the system puts out 0.33 liter of extra oxygen.

Air is 20% oxygen.

So there is 6600 liters of air * 20% oxygen with the system off or 330 liters of pure O2 going into the intake every minute with the system off. With the system on, it jumps to an astounding 330.33 liter of oxygen.

Or an enrichment of 0.33 / 330 = 0.001 or 0.1% enrichment. Big whoop.

On a total gas basis there is 6600 liters of air. And 0.66 liter of H2.
Or a hydrogen enrichment of 0.01%. If you think that 0.01% more burnable hydrogen is going to change the economy of the engine by 20% --> whoa. Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly. That would be an impact ratio of 2000:1. Diesels are already the most efficient internal combustion engines widely available. Remember, the freaking fuel is providing about 10 million times more hydrogen than the gas. It's freaking hydrocarbon fuel we burn!


Oh yeah, where do I sign up to get one of these systems?
jb

I just went to the tnhybrids web sight and they show the same truck going 60mph and getting between 26 to 70 mpg they said the hit a hill when it dropped to 26 other than that it was way above 30 mpg's

Moved to Alternative Fuels!

TNHybrids.com

Mfg for this distributor and installer

http://www.fuelfromh2o.com/index.html

3.78 Liters in a gallon

If you get 20 mpg and you driving along at 60 mph your using 1 gallon every 20 minets or 20 miles. thats 0.05 gallons per min or mile. Or 0.189 liters per min of diesel fuel. so it you are giving it 1.5 Liters per min of hydrogen that alot!!! Someone check my math! please corect me if Im wrong.

3.78 Liters in a gallon

If you get 20 mpg and you driving along at 60 mph your using 1 gallon every 20 minets or 20 miles. thats 0.05 gallons per min or mile. Or 0.189 liters per min of diesel fuel. so if you are giving it 1.5 Liters per min of hydrogen that alot!!! Someone check my math! please corect me if Im wrong.

Also www.Tnhybrids.com (http://www.Tnhybrids.com) Claims 7-8 liters per min with there 12a dual brick kit.

Also Couger GT-E you getting better mileage from burning the hydrogen not just the extra oxegen!

If you want to try it, you can build your own system cheaply. I downloaded "smack's booster" instructions, 17 pages in all. It looks easy to follow and uses stuff you can get at the local Menards, Home Depot or Lowes. How closely do you currently track your fuel consumption? If you are like me and have a log of every drop, I would tend to think you would be able to tell if it's shine-ola or not.

To get 1 pound of hydrogen, you would need to use 10 amps of current continuously for about 50 days, assuming perfect conversion from electricity and water to dissociated gases. In 20 minutes you would generate 1/(3*50*24) or 0.00027 pounds of hydrogen. That's at 100% efficiency. There are reports of these systems running at 20%. In that same 20 minutes at 60 mph and 20 mpg, you would use 1 gallon of diesel that weighs about 7.3 pounds. So turning the system on would provide the engine with 7.30027 pounds of fuel + hydrogen vs the the 7.3000 pounds with it off. Taking into account the efficiency, it's closer to 7.30005 pounds.

Put another way, it's under a gram of hydrogen best case and probably closer to 1/3 or 1/5 of a gram. If it was diesel it would be about 5-10 drops.

I can't say for 100% sure that it does not work. Haven't done the actual experiment to determine it one way or the other. But, the math works out in such a way that it is a low probability of working as advertised. Too low for me to pop the $100 estimated that it would take to build a system.

It would be super if you or someone else that actually tracks fuel closely would put one on and tell us the results, posting the fuel log etc.

Please post up if you do make one!

Good luck,
jb

FYI: http://www.tnhybrids.com/PublicSite/HowItWorks.aspx (http://www.Tnhybrids.com)

claims: "A fallacy out there is that it takes more energy to produce the HHO than the energy it releases."
They are implying here that their system takes less energy than the heat energy of combustion of the hydrogen it produces. They also claim they can produce enough hydrogen to idle an engine running on hydrogen alone (only as long as the battery lasts, I guess).

I agree that very accurate testing would be the best way to finally put to this issue to rest. Probably need to use one of the systems above, rather than a home-built rig, however, to avoid the argument that the home-built rig was not as efficient.

More info on electrolysis efficiency, here:
http://www.qsinano.com/white_papers/2006_09_15.pdf
quote: "Roughly 98% of the current hydrogen generated worldwide is prepared by steam reformation where steam is used to produce hydrogen from methane, typically derived from natural gas. To date, it is the most cost-effective method of hydrogen production."
Note how most hydrogen is currently produced, even when there is plenty of electric power from the grid to work with.

Note that the DoE has an electrolysis efficiency target of 75%,
that is met only by the newest high-tech QSI Nano-II electrodes,
but only at a low current rate of 0.1 amperes per square centimeter (light blue bars).
The dark blue bars are the higher current rate of 1.0 amps per square centimeter.
(I assume that is square centimeters of electrode surface area)
http://www.dieselplace.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=67883&stc=1&d=1213599013

If you keep posting data you're gonna ruin the argument!


I am curious if anyone has the time/money to rent a cylinder or two of hydrogen and a 4 hour block of dyno time. It would be easy to then do a continuous 40 hp pull at typical hwy rpms and monitor fuel flow, HP, Torque and exhaust emissions at various h2 flow rates. You should see an instant reduction in unburnt hydrocarbons and a 10-30% drop in fuel flow at 1-3 liter / minute hydrogen.

Who's got a dyno?

jb

I am curious if anyone has the time/money to rent a cylinder or two of hydrogen...
Funny you should mention that! I had the same thought after my post above: Start with bottled hydrogen and see how much (if any) measurable difference that makes before springing for an electrolysis device.

If you keep posting data you're gonna ruin the argument!


I am curious if anyone has the time/money to rent a cylinder or two of hydrogen and a 4 hour block of dyno time. It would be easy to then do a continuous 40 hp pull at typical hwy rpms and monitor fuel flow, HP, Torque and exhaust emissions at various h2 flow rates. You should see an instant reduction in unburnt hydrocarbons and a 10-30% drop in fuel flow at 1-3 liter / minute hydrogen.

Who's got a dyno?

jb

Whaoa .... What's this? Could it be that you are beginning to acknowledge that this could possibly work as advertised?

If I understood you correctly in the other thread, that based on your energy-balance equations, that there is absolutely no possibility for this to work. 'the laws of thermodynamics absolutely prohibit this'.

What gives?

Check out the HHO Forums (http://hhoforums.com/index.php), a place for the believers and non-believers to post.

cougar, I suspect that someone HAS put a hydrogen bottle on a dyno and the results weren't too favorable to the "hype" of the HHO Kool Aid party, so was never published. I still marvel at the fawning masses sucking this stuff up when there is no viable or confirmed evidence of major manufacturer results when they are desperate to meet CAFE standards and improve economy. They have discarded it, but Billy-Bob in the barn is getting 40 mpg with a PVC pipe and stainless switch plates?

It boggles the mind.

cougar, I suspect that someone HAS put a hydrogen bottle on a dyno and the results weren't too favorable to the "hype" of the HHO Kool Aid party, so was never published. I still marvel at the fawning masses sucking this stuff up when there is no viable or confirmed evidence of major manufacturer results when they are desperate to meet CAFE standards and improve economy. They have discarded it, but Billy-Bob in the barn is getting 40 mpg with a PVC pipe and stainless switch plates?

It boggles the mind.

You're going to anger JoJo talking like that. You don't want to anger JoJo, or he'll unleash his super fantastic plasma on your a$$.

You're going to anger JoJo talking like that. You don't want to anger JoJo, or he'll unleash his super fantastic plasma on your a$$.

You're just jealous you don't have the Ironman-like plasma weapon like I do.

Whaoa .... What's this? Could it be that you are beginning to acknowledge that this could possibly work as advertised?

If I understood you correctly in the other thread, that based on your energy-balance equations, that there is absolutely no possibility for this to work. 'the laws of thermodynamics absolutely prohibit this'.

What gives?


Don't get too happy now. I'm maintaining as much openness as a skeptic can have, in the face of 99.9999% probability that it is not going to work as advertised. Plus --> and much more important to me personally <-- I am being honest. If I know it is impossible, and have shown it to be that way, I'll say it. If there is a slight chance it could work (even a 0.00001% chance), I'll say that too.

But think about this - if the gizmo worked and improved my mpg's by 25%, it would break even after 2000 miles at $5 gallon. That's just over a month and a half of driving. (Actually, it would be less as my base is higher and the estimated costs are lower. )

jojo - when you gonna put your truck on the rollers with a bottle of H2 ? Or don't you want to invest that small amount proving how well it works? Or if you have tight dollars, why not just put a system on, you are a true believer - right?

By the way, the only area that I have not poked around in is one of catalytic improvement. Where the free hydrogen (or the entrained caustic more likely) is catalytically accelerating the reaction to a near 100% completion. But, if that is correct, who want's to spit concentrated caustic onto a hot turbo vane? Errrr, not me!

Keep slugging!
jb

FYI:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency_Hydrogen_Injection

This caught my eye, although rather than a simple add-on device, this appears to require an engine designed around this system. One of the goals appears to be emissions reduction.
Please note that the "Plasma Fuel Reformer" makes hydrogen from diesel fuel or gasoline, not water.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/hydrogenenhance.html
Work being done by ArvinMeritor, IAV (Ingenieursgesellshaft für Auto und Verkehr) and MIT on enhancing gasoline combustion with a small hydrogen gas stream is pointing toward a potential estimated improvement in gasoline fuel economy of 20% to 30%, depending upon the baseline engine.

Writing in the October issue of MTZ (Motortechnische Zeitschrift), Utz-Jens Beister from IAV and Rudy Smaling from ArvinMeritor describe their progress with the Hydrogen-Enhanced Combustion Engine (HECE) concept, as applied to an SUV-class 3.2-liter V6 test engine.

The premise of HECE, on which the research collaborative has been working for a number of years, is that the addition of a small amount of hydrogen to the cylinder charge can allow homogeneous charge ultra-lean-burn combustion engines to operate much leaner than otherwise possible.

That in itself is not a new discovery. What brings HECE closer to operational reality is the ArvinMeritor/MIT on-board, compact plasma reformer (earlier post) that can take a fraction of the conventional fuel, reform it in real-time and add the resulting hydrogen-rich gas to the remaining fuel-air mixture flowing into the engine.

In the plasma fuel reformer, air is metered into a plasma generator located upstream of a combustor. High voltage is applied to the air stream, forming high-temperature plasma. This high-temperature plasma torch flows into the combustor, initiating vigorous combustion of a rich fuel-air mixture. Within the plasma fuel reformer, partial oxidation reactions occur in the high-temperature gas phase created by the plasma, eliminating the need for a reforming catalyst.

Researchers at the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at MIT also discovered that both hydrogen and carbon monoxide (both products of the partial oxidation process of the reformer) act as octane enhancers. Adding the reformed fuel gas to the engine thus also supports a substantial increase in compression ratio.
http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/hecelimits.png
Once an engine is developed that operates ultra-lean, is turbocharged—or super-charged—and is better able to withstand engine knock, engine downsizing while maintaining performance becomes a credible option that can lead to significant additional fuel economy and performance benefits. —Beister and Smaling

Such an ultra-lean-burn, high compression-ratio, turbocharged HECE could exhibit the following characteristics:
Extremely low engine out NOx emissions requiring little or no exhaust emissions control
Reduced pumping losses (~5-10% efficiency gain)
Improved thermodynamics (~10-12% efficiency gain)
Reduced friction (downsizing) (~5-8% efficiency gain)

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/06/arvinmeritor_cl.html
Of particular long-term significance is the official release of the Plasma Fuel Reformer. (Image at right, click to enlarge.) The Plasma Fuel Reformer uses an electrical plasma (a strong, continuous “spark”) to combust partially a mixture of air and the vehicle’s hydrocarbon fuel -- diesel or gasoline.

The team is finding that the device could make vehicles cleaner and more efficient, with a potentially significant impact on oil consumption.

“If widespread use of plasmatron hydrogen-enhanced gasoline engines could eventually increase the average efficiency of cars and other light-duty vehicles by 20 percent, the amount of gasoline that could be saved would be around 25 billion gallons a year,” [Daniel] Cohn [one of the leaders of the team and head of the Plasma Technology Division at MIT’s PSFC] said.

ArvinMeritor expects the Plasma Fuel Reformer to be in production in 2010. Currently the device is undergoing in-vehicle testing on heavy and light trucks and buses. ArvinMeritor is also exploring using the device in gasoline engines to support ultralean turbocharging, with resulting emissions reduction and fuel efficiency.

More here: http://thekneeslider.com/archives/2005/07/22/plasma-fuel-reformer/
ArvinMeritor has been experimenting with the plasma fuel reformer where they create a continuous spark (plasma) in a chamber filled with gasoline vapor and air whereby the fuel dissociates to create a hydrogen-rich gas of 20% hydrogen, 20% carbon monoxide, CO, and the rest nitrogen. This gas, when used in the combustion process, enables a dramatically leaner engine, increasing fuel efficiency and dropping NOx emissions. What’s neat is that the hydrogen is created on demand and the gas raises the octane rating of the fuel about 20 points, your 87 octane pump gas just became 107 octane! That means you can raise compression, use a turbo and get great performance from a much smaller engine. Hydrogen on demand means you don’t need hydrogen filling stations either.

This technology was developed to lower emissions in heavy trucks but as they kept working with it the performance possibilities became apparent. This won’t be available for several years but it sounds very promising.

and here: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0621/170_print.html
http://www.motortrend.com/features/editorial/112_0502_technologue/index.html

It still seems to me that given all the university-level research that is going on into the type of devices described above, that if a simple electrolysis hydrogen generator was actually beneficial, some major company or research organization would be all over it as a way to help increase CAFE.

Instead, the only promoters of the electrolysis systems are companies you've never heard of.
Even worse, the top sponsored links you find with google are fake "review" sites like these... http://www.water-fuel-review.com/indextid2.html
http://www.water-for-fuel-scam.com/index7bfuel.htm
http://www.water-fuel-car-exposed.com/
...that ostensibly appear to "expose" the "scam" but actually promote what are probably affiliated sites.


On the other hand, maybe the addition of small amounts of hydrogen could allow the engine to run leaner than it otherwise would? But if that's the case, wouldn't the ECM have to be recalibrated?

Normally, pure hydrogen has a lower octane rating than gasoline (according to: http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm), unlike the case with the reformers above where they add hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

As Cougar mentioned, testing on a dyno with bottled hydrogen would show whether it works or not. It's only going to go downhill from there because making hydrogen on the fly with electricity from the alternator is never going to match bottled hydrogen.

How the heck can you get a pound of hydrogen? is it not a gas that is lighter than air? I don't believe it weighs anything? I think my comparison and yours are both like Comparing apples to oranges. Gas verses Liquid. With completely different burning characteristics.

If you want to try it, you can build your own system cheaply. I downloaded "smack's booster" instructions, 17 pages in all. It looks easy to follow and uses stuff you can get at the local Menards, Home Depot or Lowes. How closely do you currently track your fuel consumption? If you are like me and have a log of every drop, I would tend to think you would be able to tell if it's shine-ola or not.

To get 1 pound of hydrogen, you would need to use 10 amps of current continuously for about 50 days, assuming perfect conversion from electricity and water to dissociated gases. In 20 minutes you would generate 1/(3*50*24) or 0.00027 pounds of hydrogen. That's at 100% efficiency. There are reports of these systems running at 20%. In that same 20 minutes at 60 mph and 20 mpg, you would use 1 gallon of diesel that weighs about 7.3 pounds. So turning the system on would provide the engine with 7.30027 pounds of fuel + hydrogen vs the the 7.3000 pounds with it off. Taking into account the efficiency, it's closer to 7.30005 pounds.

Put another way, it's under a gram of hydrogen best case and probably closer to 1/3 or 1/5 of a gram. If it was diesel it would be about 5-10 drops.

I can't say for 100% sure that it does not work. Haven't done the actual experiment to determine it one way or the other. But, the math works out in such a way that it is a low probability of working as advertised. Too low for me to pop the $100 estimated that it would take to build a system.

It would be super if you or someone else that actually tracks fuel closely would put one on and tell us the results, posting the fuel log etc.

Please post up if you do make one!

Good luck,
jb

I just can't believe if these kits are junk someone wouldn't be so pissed at wasting $1000 to go out and tell everyone not to waste there money!
I haven't found anyone that installed one of these that said they don't work. They just say they don't work as well as claimed. Most say a 15-25% increase in mileage.

Come on guys! You have to start thinking outside the box a little! You all remember Smokey Yunick right? If you are worried about all of that power the engine is losing to turn that alternator, don't use the engine to do it! I don't recall which race it was but Smokey's car got torn down ( as usual) because he was running so much faster, and of course Smokey being Smokey, they figured he had to be cheating some how. Turned out Smokey had rigged his alternator with a propeller and was using ram air to spin it.
No parasitic horsepower loss.
As the story goes a NASCAR official threw the rule book at him and demanded Smokey show him where in the book it said he could do that. Smokeys response was "Show me where it says I can't!"

How the heck can you get a pound of hydrogen?
You can either buy it, or make it via electrolysis from water.

At normal atmospheric pressure & temperature, hydrogen has a density of 0.08988 grams per liter.

That means that 5,046 liters (1,333 gallons) of uncompressed hydrogen has a mass
(what we here on earth commonly refer to as weight) of 1 pound.

In comparison, air is much denser, which makes hydrogen buoyant.

Come on guys! You have to start thinking outside the box a little! You all remember Smokey Yunick right? If you are worried about all of that power the engine is losing to turn that alternator, don't use the engine to do it! I don't recall which race it was but Smokey's car got torn down ( as usual) because he was running so much faster, and of course Smokey being Smokey, they figured he had to be cheating some how. Turned out Smokey had rigged his alternator with a propeller and was using ram air to spin it. No parasitic horsepower loss.
Hey, great idea!
Even better - why not use an even larger propeller and run the entire car off that? :rolleyes:

So What would be a fair way of comparing the gases diesel vs hydrogen? BTU's?
If that's a fair comparison how many btu's dose a liter of hydrogen and a liter of diesel fuel have??

I would think a pound of hydrogen would much more energy than a pound of gasoline or diesel.
I have no idea if it works, but do a search on youtube for Stan Meyer, alot of info, or mis-info.

C'mon now Elvis, this is a neat way to generate the electricity needed for the electrolysis without loading the alternator run by the engine. That way we get around that pesky physics stuff! We already have all of that air rushing through the grill and the radiator at highway speeds. How is directing a portion of that to an impeller on a free standing system going to make us burn more fuel? Are the underhood aerodynamics on our trucks so precise that this would raise our drag coefficient?

If someone wants to donate dyno time and is close to me. I will get some hydrogen and a regulator and plum it into my intake. I found today that a fairly big bottle of hydrogen only cost about $40 for the gas and about $0.30 a day for tank rental. or $140 for renting a tank for a year! I would be very interseted in the results. But How much differance is stright hydrogen vs. Oxy hydrogen (or Brown gas)???

I think that this test would not prove anything because its pure hydrogen.??

How the heck can you get a pound of hydrogen? is it not a gas that is lighter than air? I don't believe it weighs anything? I think my comparison and yours are both like Comparing apples to oranges. Gas verses Liquid. With completely different burning characteristics.


{Chuckle!}

That's a good one! In chemistry you manipulate stuff and change it's electron interactions to get new stuff or to recover previously combined stuff. If you imagine compressing the hydrogen or better yet doing that and cooling it enough so you are liquefying it, you could easily put it into a pressure vessel. The mass change from the empty to filled condition would tell you how much is in there. You don't have to depend on the vagaries of a gravity field to determine how much stuff you have. Remember, gravity changes with the local density of the earth and with your distance from the center of the earth. If you had an accurate scale, you would find you weigh less on the second floor than you do in the basement. Your mass doesn't change depending on where you are weighed. (imagine a sealed block of steel, obviously if you are running up the steps you're sweating and burning calories, etc). You can also determine how much stuff you have in other ways. There is a relationship that goes PV=nRT where P is pressure, V is volume and n is the number of individuals of "stuff", R is a constant and T is temperature. You can tell how much is produced by the volume it takes up (liters/minute tells you how many liters if you have a watch). If you know the T temperature you can tell the number of atoms of hydrogen and oxygen liberated. This isn't just some crack pipe theory that I made up tonight in the basement. It was made up and verified a long time ago. (crack pipe optional). You can also think about this. Hot air balloons are also lighter than air. Are they made up of nothing? Of course not, they are made up of air. The Volume of the balloon does not change, the pressure in the balloon does not materially change (it's open at the bottom and free to exchange with the environment). So, why does it float when it's hot and drop when it cools? P and V are constant, T goes up....R is a constant. Than means that n has to get smaller. And that's what happens. n gets smaller when the air is heated. Gas atoms zip out the bottom until so many zip out that the total weight of the balloon drops enough to generate lift. As it cools, they zip back in thru the open bottom. It weighs more and the balloon sinks. It's all in the equation. I guess the point I'm ambling around is that you don't need to weigh stuff with a scale to determine how much you have. And the inability to use a scale at all (outer space) does not mean nothing is produced.

Our examples are not dissimilar. Just the analysis used to look at it. By the way, the liquid diesel is also a gas after being compressed to 22,000 psi and squirted thru a nozzle into a hot air mixture.


Still, I could be wrong. Have you downloaded the plans yet? Eagerly awaiting your results from the use of one of these systems.

Also eagerly awaiting some independant dyno tests done with either one of these systems or a cylinder of hydrogen.


jb

C'mon Cougar! You don't need all that algebra stuff!:rolleyes: Anyone knows that you weigh a ballon full of hydrogen by putting a bathroom scale on the TOP and fill 'er up until it pushes UP at one pound indicated!:D No wonder you can't figure this hydrogen miracle out!;)

It seems that it would add some energy to the combustion as long as it doesn't draw too many amps. I've been wanting to get a beater just to try it.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWaX-Okd5UE

I would think a pound of hydrogen would much more energy than a pound of gasoline or diesel.
You are correct. After all, it's all hydrogen, no carbon. As you move toward straight hydrogen from more complex hydrocarbons like gasoline, the molecule contains more hydrogen and less carbon. Hydrogen is at the top, then methane (CH4, natural gas), then propane (C3H8). However, the tradeoff of higher energy density per pound is lower physical density, resulting in a lower mass (weight) of fuel at any given pressure and volume.

I pulled these numbers off of an old spreadsheet. Hopefully they are close:
Diesel fuel is about 18,000 - 19,100 Btu per pound / 130,000 - 138,000 Btu Btu per US gallon
Gasoline is about 18,000 - 18,500 Btu per pound / 112,500 - 114,500 Btu Btu per US gallon
Reformulated Gasoline (10% ethanol) is about 17,600 Btu per pound / 110,200 Btu per US gallon
E85 is about ? Btu per pound / 81,500 Btu per US gallon
Ethanol is about 11,500 Btu per pound / 76,000 Btu per US gallon
Methanol is about 7,900 Btu per pound / 52,300 Btu per US gallon
Propane is about 21,500 Btu per pound / 91,500 Btu per US gallon @ commercial low pressure
Natural gas is about 23,250 Btu per pound / 38,900 Btu per US gallon @ 3,600psi
Hydrogen is about 55,710 Btu per pound / 8,270 Btu per US gallon @ 3,600psi

In comparison, a lead-acid battery can store around 50 Btu-equivalent per pound.

Fuel tank sizes relative to gasoline to hold equivalent energy:
Diesel fuel: 0.83 - 0.88 gallons
Gasoline: 1.00 gallon, ~ 6.2 lbs.
Ethanol: 1.51 gallons
Methanol: 2.19 gallons
Propane: 1.25 gallons (@ commercial low pressure)
Propane: 1.18 gallons (@ 100% liquid)
Natural Gas: 3.44 gallons (@ 3,600 psi)
Hydrogen: 13.85 gallons (@ 3,600 psi)
Lead-acid battery: ~ 97.3 gallons


And now that I typed all that in, I see that Wikipedia lists these values:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_of_combustion
Heat of combustion for common fuels (higher value)
Hydrogen: 61,000 BTU/lb
Gasoline: 20,400 BTU/lb
Diesel: 19,300 BTU/lb
Ethanol: 12,800 BTU/lb
Propane: 21,500 BTU/lb
Butane: 21,200 BTU/lb
Wood: 6,500 BTU/lb
Coal: 8,000–14,000 BTU/lb
Natural Gas: ~23,000 BTU/lb

I guess the phrase "Your mileage may vary" applies here to the discrepancies between the values on Wikipedia and the ones from my old spreadsheet. Their value for gasoline is higher than I've ever seen anywhere else.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RMj14tPiIww

Here's an engine running on hydrogen

He mentions that with hydrogen as a fuel, there is less energy lost as heat.

Since that's where about 80% of the energy in the fuel normally goes, that's also about the only place any minor change is going to be able to make a measurable difference.

I wonder if the use of such a low density fuel as hydrogen has something to do with this? I guess it might reduce pumping losses at light throttle settings (where there would otherwise be a high vacuum) on a spark-ignition engine. That is, assuming that enough hydrogen is injected to make any real difference.

I've read of others who claim to use different types of coatings intended to reduce heat loss through transfer to the internal parts of the engine.

The elimination of the carburetor is nothing new. Gaseous fuels does not require a carburetor or fuel injector to atomize it. Simple natural gas and propane generator conversion kits use a similar approach - replacing the carburetor with a gas valve assembly.

More info here:
Hydrogen Basics - Internal Combustion Engines
http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/utilization-ice.htm
Unlike gasoline-fueled engines that require throttling at lower engine loads, hydrogen-fueled engines can be operated at reduced power levels by limiting only the rate at which fuel is supplied, without restricting the flow rate of the intake air. Therefore, engine "pumping losses" which occur when the throttle valve is used are completely avoided.

and here:
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/30295/1/IJHE32-17.pdf
...hydrogen has unique combustion characteristics influencing the thermal efficiency of engines. Particularly, hydrogen has a higher burning velocity, a shorter quenching distance, and a higher thermal conductivity than hydrocarbon fuels. The high burning velocity causes a rapid flame propagation in hydrogen combustion engines resulting in an intense convection of the burning gas and a large heat transfer from the burning gas to the combustion chamber walls. The short quenching distance and the high thermal conductivity of hydrogen may also increase the heat transfer. Shorter quenching distance leads to thinner temperature boundary layer on the walls, and higher thermal conductivity leads to larger heat transfer from unburned mixture to the walls. Because of the cooling loss, a heat transfer loss, the thermal efficiency of hydrogen combustion engines is sometimes lower than engines fueled with conventional hydrocarbon fuels. Figure 1 shows the maximum heat flux to the cylinder head, the cooling loss fraction and the indicated thermal efficiency for hydrogen and methane combustion at stoichiometric conditions. A large cooling loss fraction for hydrogen combustion resulted in lower thermal efficiency than methane combustion.

Still more info here:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/tech_validation/pdfs/fcm03r0.pdf

Thermal Efficiency
The theoretical thermodynamic efficiency of an Otto cycle engine is based on the compression ratio of the engine and the specific-heat ratio of the fuel.

The higher the compression ratio and/or the specific-heat ratio, the higher the indicated thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. The compression ratio limit of an engine is based on the fuel’s resistance to knock. A lean hydrogen mixture is less susceptible to knock than conventional gasoline and therefore can tolerate higher compression ratios.

The specific-heat ratio is related to the fuel’s molecular structure. The less complex the molecular structure, the higher the specific-heat ratio. Hydrogen (γ = 1.4) has a much simpler molecular structure than gasoline and therefore its specific-heat ratio is higher than that of conventional gasoline (γ = 1.1).

Hydrogen Gas Mixtures
Hydrogen can be used advantageously in internal combustion engines as an additive to a hydrocarbon fuel.

Hydrogen is most commonly mixed with high pressure natural gas for this purpose since both gases can be stored in the same tank. If hydrogen is blended with other fuels, it usually has to be stored separately and mixed in the gaseous state immediately before ignition. In general, it is impractical to use hydrogen in conjunction with other fuels that also require bulky storage systems, such as propane.

Gaseous hydrogen cannot be stored in the same vessel as a liquid fuel. Hydrogen’s low density will cause it to remain on top of the liquid and not mix. Furthermore, liquid fuels are stored at relatively low pressures so that very little hydrogen could be added to the vessel.

Liquid hydrogen cannot be stored in the same vessel as other fuels. Hydrogen’s low boiling point will freeze other fuels resulting in fuel “ice.”

Hydrogen can be used in conjunction with compact liquid fuels such as gasoline, alcohol or diesel provided each are stored separately. In these applications, the fuel tanks can be formed to fit into unused spaces on the vehicle. Existing vehicles of this type tend to operate using one fuel or the other but not both at the same time. One advantage of this strategy is that the vehicle can continue to operate if hydrogen is unavailable.

Hydrogen cannot be used directly in a diesel (or “compression ignition”) engine since hydrogen’s autoignition temperature is too high (this is also true of natural gas). Thus, diesel engines must be outfitted with spark plugs or use a small amount of diesel fuel to ignite the gas (known as pilot ignition). Although pilot ignition techniques have been developed for use with natural gas, no one is currently doing this with hydrogen.

One commercially available gas mixture known as Hythane contains 20% hydrogen and 80% natural gas. At this ratio, no modifications are required to a natural gas engine, and studies have shown that emissions are reduced by more than 20%. Mixtures of more than 20% hydrogen with natural gas can reduce emissions further but some engine modifications are required.


I see a lot of industry and university research into hydrogen as a fuel for internal combustion engines, but it's only small companies you never heard of that are promoting kits that use the alternator to create hydrogen via electrolysis.

Dyno test results here (on the merchant's website, of course):

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/May%202007.html
"Over the last couple months I have been in contact with a couple students and their professor at Purdue University who wanted to do a senior project testing Hydrogen Boost on a diesel engine with an engine dynamometer. The test used three types of fuel, petroleum diesel, bio-diesel, and vegetable oil. I would like to give the students’ and professor’s names but have not asked them for permission so I will hold that in confidence unless they contact me with permission."

http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/raw%20data.html

Specs:
http://www.hydrogen-boost.com/newmodels.html
Model 12 15 10 20 30 40
Diameter (inches) 3 4 3 5 5 5
Height (inches) 9 9 8 8 11 15
Electrode Height (inches) 6 6 6 6 9 12
Electrolytic Cells 1 2 4 6 6 6
Design current (Amps) 12 15 10 20 30 40
Maximum current (Amps) 30 30 30 30 40 50
Gas per hour (liters) 10 24 32 96 144 192
Maximum gas/hour (liters) 25 48 96 144 192 240
Efficiency % 12.5% 25% 50% 75% 75% 75%

Since uncompressed hydrogen has a density of about 0.08988 grams per liter, and the nominal output of their largest unit is 192 liters per hour, that's only 17.257 grams (0.0380 pounds) of hydrogen per hour, and it apparently draws 40 amps at 12 volts during that hour (480 watt-hours, or 1,638 Btu-equivalent) to do that.
If that's all true, then their electrolysis is actually more than 100% efficient, rather than the 75% claimed, since that 0.0380 pounds of hydrogen will produce as much as 2,300 Btu when combusted.

So, even if I accept their specs at face value, how much help is an extra 2,300 Btu going to provide over the space of an hour to an engine that at 60 mph and 20mpg is burning 3 gallons of diesel fuel (yielding roughly 400,000 Btu) per hour?

I don't think you can build a efficient unit in my garage, So if I get on it will be a premade one. After I sell my 1/2 ton truck I will order a unit and test it out. How ever I don't have a dyno so It will just be a mpg comparison.

{Chuckle!}

Still, I could be wrong. Have you downloaded the plans yet? Eagerly awaiting your results from the use of one of these systems.

Also eagerly awaiting some independant dyno tests done with either one of these systems or a cylinder of hydrogen.


jb

and here:
http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/30295/1/IJHE32-17.pdf
...hydrogen has unique combustion characteristics influencing the thermal efficiency of engines. Particularly, hydrogen has a higher burning velocity, a shorter quenching distance, and a higher thermal conductivity than hydrocarbon fuels. The high burning velocity causes a rapid flame propagation in hydrogen combustion engines resulting in an intense convection of the burning gas and a large heat transfer from the burning gas to the combustion chamber walls. The short quenching distance and the high thermal conductivity of hydrogen may also increase the heat transfer. Shorter quenching distance leads to thinner temperature boundary layer on the walls, and higher thermal conductivity leads to larger heat transfer from unburned mixture to the walls. Because of the cooling loss, a heat transfer loss, the thermal efficiency of hydrogen combustion engines is sometimes lower than engines fueled with conventional hydrocarbon fuels. Figure 1 shows the maximum heat flux to the cylinder head, the cooling loss fraction and the indicated thermal efficiency for hydrogen and methane combustion at stoichiometric conditions. A large cooling loss fraction for hydrogen combustion resulted in lower thermal efficiency than methane combustion.


Interesting in that article hydrogen has a "high flame propagation rate", but in other articles it is much slower than air/gasoline mixtures and in fact H2/O2 mixtures slow down flame propagation rate as compression is increased.

Wierd. Oh wait, not all articles are correct.


Say Elvis, Can you use your search skills to find some papers listing flame propagation rates and combustion byproducts for air/diesel mixtures with gaseous H2 concentrations from 0-5%. Mostly in the close to 0% range as these gizmos can only put out enough to be in the 100's to 1000's of ppm H2 range.

Thanks!!

Needmorepower, Look forward to seeing your future posts with a store bought unit. If you are fairly close to Loyal, WI there is a member there that has a dyno. Maybe you can sweet talk him into some dyno time to show the effects of H2 fumigation? He is John Kennedy of Kennedy Diesel - a frequent poster and reported all around good guy. (I've never spoken to him so that's just based on comments posted here. I'll take them back if it turns out he is not a Packer fan....)

If you can get dyno time there, post (or pm me) as I would like to watch / participate. I'd be coming from the Eau Claire area.

luck,
jb

Interesting in that article hydrogen has a "high flame propagation rate", but in other articles it is much slower than air/gasoline mixtures and in fact H2/O2 mixtures slow down flame propagation rate as compression is increased.
Yeah, I noticed that. On the one hand, more prone to pre-ignition, but on the other hand, allow higher compression ratio.

Hydrogen's high auto-ignition temperature provides an opportunity to operate hydrogen-fueled engines at higher compression ratios than those normally used with gasoline engines. The result is a further gain in indicated thermal efficiency.

Impediments to hydrogen utilization in an ICE are caused by its low ignition energy and wide limits of flammability. These make hydrogen engines particularly prone to pre-ignition. The situation is further aggravated by hydrogen's high flame speed. Pre-ignition leads to harmful flashbacks into the carburetor and rough operation and is believed to be due to the development of surface "hot spots." Induction ignition can occur due to excessive temperatures of both combustion chamber components and small surface deposits or suspended particles. Hydrogen's exceptionally low ignition energy requires that the average temperature prevailing within the combustion space during induction be sufficiently low so that the formation of hot spots is avoided. http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/utilization-ice.htm

There's more to that story though. And it all seems to revolve around engine designs optimized for the hydrogen fuel, rather than some add-on devices. None of these articles refer to electrolysis systems that add oxygen either. And you're saying that the oxygen is what makes that difference?

The guy at United Nuclear http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm (yep, he's that Bob Lazar of Area 51 infamy) stated that with their add-on kits, hydrogen acted like a low-octane fuel, and required the ignition timing to be retarded. He may have scammed radio audiences with his tales of Area 51, but even he wasn't trying to do electrolysis on the fly.

I've done all the searching I'm going to do on this dead horse.

Verifiable independent dyno runs may tell the tale, and they are conspicuously absent from the claims made by sellers of these devices.

I'm curious about these HHO generators but have concerns regarding the long term effect on the internals of a diesel (or gas) engine if used over an extended length of time. I watched a few of these YouTube videos on the subject but none that I viewed seemed to address any long term use experiences nor any negative effects to the engine, turbo, converter, etc with them.

Would the hydrogen's ignition in a 4 cycle situation cause any excessive pressures in the combustion chamber and when the combusted HHO turns back into H20 after combustion, is the moisture damaging the engine or does the heat just vaporize it to steam and blow it out the exhaust harmlessly? What would this steam be doing to the turbo? :confuzeld

Normal diesel (or gasoline) turns to water in combustion. Long chain hydrocarbons break down with combined with oxygen and for water H2O, carbon dioxide CO2, some unwanted byproducts like carbon dioxide CO, and oxides of nitrogen NOx's and heat. We use the heat to expand the gases and rotate the crankshaft providing torque used to move our trucks.

So, no issue with H2's mating with the O2's for form little water babies.

Also, the amount of H2's being added is microscopic in comparison with the amount of fuel added normally. It's on the order of 0.00027 pounds of hydrogen compared to 7.3 pounds of diesel fuel (to go 20 miles in 20 minutes at 20 mpg). The Q in my head, is how 0.00027 pounds of hydrogen is able to displace 25% of the 7.3 pounds of diesel? It would seem that the claims are that hydrogen is 6700 x more powerful than diesel fuel. (6759 to be exact). Which is odd as the diesel fuel also contains a large large large amount of hydrogen as part of the long chain hydrocarbon molecule. So apparently, hydrogen from electrolosys is different from hydrogen from hydrocarbons and is in fact 6759 x more powerful.

yeah, right. I got a bridge to see too. How about some ocean front land in Nevada?

...So, no issue with H2's mating with the O2's for form little water babies...

You almost make it sound dirty...

Can't we go back to arguing about the increased mileage benefits of acetone in diesel? This hydrogen stuff is getting boring...

Can't we go back to arguing about the increased mileage benefits of acetone in diesel? This hydrogen stuff is getting boring...


Even the "spicy" parts about making water babies?


How about the milage gains from adding 2 cycle oil? I've wondered if the volume of oil added is included in the fuel total? 1-2 quarts a tank adds up!

jb

...How about the milage gains from adding 2 cycle oil? I've wondered if the volume of oil added is included in the fuel total? 1-2 quarts a tank adds up!

jb

That popping sound you just heard was another can of worms being opened...

I've never seen nor claimed any mileage gain from 2-stroke oil. I do add it to every tank for lubricity concerns over ULSD. I seems to smooth out my idle and the truck feels subjectively "perkier" but it's lubricity only for me and my original 2001 injectors at 157K miles seem to like it.

http://www.utahbiodieselsupply.com/smilies/popcorn.gif

Even if the Hydro maker provided no MPG gain or Performance gain if I knew is would keep my fuel system as in the injectors and rails clean it would be worth it have your fuel system running at peak cleanliness all the time.

I've never seen nor claimed any mileage gain from 2-stroke oil. I do add it to every tank for lubricity concerns over ULSD. I seems to smooth out my idle and the truck feels subjectively "perkier" but it's lubricity only for me and my original 2001 injectors at 157K miles seem to like it.

Yeah, I add it too. In fact, put some in today and the thought struck me. Hey! I've put in several gallons of this stuff over time, more volume = more miles. And I didn't (and won't) add 1/4 gal on to the fill qty. (Too fat, dumb and lazy)

Just thought I'd add a pepper to the pot being stirred!

jb

Needmorepower, Look forward to seeing your future posts with a store bought unit. If you are fairly close to Loyal, WI there is a member there that has a dyno. Maybe you can sweet talk him into some dyno time to show the effects of H2 fumigation? He is John Kennedy of Kennedy Diesel - a frequent poster and reported all around good guy. (I've never spoken to him so that's just based on comments posted here. I'll take them back if it turns out he is not a Packer fan....)
If you can get dyno time there, post (or pm me) as I would like to watch / participate. I'd be coming from the Eau Claire area. jb

I'm about 2.5 Hours from there. When I get it and figure out if it works or not. If it dose I will be glad to show it off on a dyno.

If I get a tank of hydrogen and a regulator, and regulate it down to 7-8 liters per min, plumb in into my intake. Then go for a 2 hour drive that should show some results??? I have efi Live so if I scan how much fuel is being injected with and without hydrogen. If the hydrogen is added, to keep the idle speed at idle the computer should automatically lower the fuel being injected to lower the idle to the target idle speed right??

No one has mentioned this so maybe everybody missed it? The 06 Duramax in the video by TNHybrids shows a scangauge right after he starts it for the first time. Now I have to assume the engine is cold. The scangauge is reading 0.35 GPH and it hasn't produced any hydrogen yet. I have been running a scangauge since I bought my truck and I can tell you that a cold Duramax uses 0.8 min. and usually 1.0 GPH cold????? I say SCAM. THE SCANGAUGE IS NOT ADJUSTED PROPERLY.

Alot of what Cougar GT-E was saying is found here;

http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html

I'm about 2.5 Hours from there. When I get it and figure out if it works or not. If it dose I will be glad to show it off on a dyno.

If I get a tank of hydrogen and a regulator, and regulate it down to 7-8 liters per min, plumb in into my intake. Then go for a 2 hour drive that should show some results??? I have efi Live so if I scan how much fuel is being injected with and without hydrogen. If the hydrogen is added, to keep the idle speed at idle the computer should automatically lower the fuel being injected to lower the idle to the target idle speed right??


That sounds like a reasonable thing to me. Not perfect, but a lot better than most all the claims out there!

I wouldn't bother about idle. There is not much fuel used there, unless you are a compulsive idler. Jump on the freeway and stick the cruise control at 60 and monitor the fuel injected for 5 - 10 minutes. Have a passenger (I would recommend one of the softer and curvier variety) write down what the injection rate is every 15 seconds for 5-10 min. (if it's real steady, just use 5). Then flip the switch and wait for your eyeballs to unflatten from the huge burst of acceleration (:)) and repeat the measurements. You should be seeing 10-30% less fuel. Actually, it should be in the 30-50% less if you are fumigating with 7-8 liter/min as most system put out 1.5 to 1.7 liter/min total gas with 16-20 amps input current at 14v. Repeat that pattern 3 times to minimize the impact of hills, wind etc. Then cut the H2 flow rate in half and repeat, then go to double the original flow rate and repeat the measurements. Finally, go to 1.0 liter/min and repeat the measurements. This one is an important one as it is very close to what the home brew systems claim for a flow rate. If you have gages, note the boost, egt and any other pertinent information.

Then top off the tank and drive 100 miles or more. Top off again and drive 100 or more again with the H2 flowing. Top off and scurry back here to make fun of me and the other doubters. Don't worry about our feelings, if we are wrong - the fuel savings will ease the pain of crushing public humiliation.

Have fun,
jb

Alot of what Cougar GT-E was saying is found here;
http://mb-soft.com/public2/hydrogen.html
Nice find. In addition to the comments about the slow flame front speed...
"Hydrogen-air mixture has a flame-front speed of around 1/10 that of a gasoline-air mixture"

...that article also mentions how expensive hydrogen is compared to gasoline, whether you make it from electricity from the grid (and electricity from a vehicle alternator is going to cost even more) or buy hydrogen in tanks:

"...you are going to need an amount of Hydrogen that would more than fill two semi trailers, to just equal one tank of gasoline!

This is yet another reason why compressed hydrogen is an impractical fuel for an internal combustion engine. Even though a large-scale natural gas infrastructure already exists, and a gasoline-gallon-equivalent of natural gas is about one-third the current cost of gasoline, NG vehicles still have not been very popular. Hydrogen costs many times more and requires a fuel tank about four times the size of NG. Fuel tank sizes to hold the same energy as 1 gallon of gasoline:
Natural Gas: 3.44 gallons (@ 3,600 psi)
Hydrogen: 13.85 gallons (@ 3,600 psi)

...the amount of electricity needed for that is a LOT of electricity! It turns out that all this will increase your electric bill by at least $7 (and likely much more) for the equivalent of one gallon of gasoline.

Current prices for Industrial Hydrogen (the lowest purity available) are around $42 for a standard K cylinder, a very high pressure tank which contains 197 standard cubic feet of Hydrogen, plus a monthly rental fee for the tank. The 6,000 cubic feet that we had earlier determined were equal to one 15 gallon tank of gasoline, would therefore be around 30 of these tanks, which would cost around $1260 for the compressed Hydrogen plus the monthly rental of around $300 for the tanks themselves.

We complain today at paying $3 per gallon for gasoline, which would be $45 for our 15 gallon tank. How many people would be willing to pay $1260 and more for the same driving distance, using Hydrogen?"


If I get a tank of hydrogen and a regulator, and regulate it down to 7-8 liters per min, plumb in into my intake. Then go for a 2 hour drive that should show some results??? I have efi Live so if I scan how much fuel is being injected with and without hydrogen. If the hydrogen is added, to keep the idle speed at idle the computer should automatically lower the fuel being injected to lower the idle to the target idle speed right??
In order to simulate one of the electrolysis devices as closely as possible, won't you also need an oxygen tank?

We complain today at paying $3 per gallon for gasoline, which would be $45 for our 15 gallon tank. How many people would be willing to pay $1260 and more for the same driving distance, using Hydrogen?"



In order to simulate one of the electrolysis devices as closely as possible, won't you also need an oxygen tank?


Elvis_knows, Can you PLEASE tell me where you are getting gasoline for $3 a gallon? I've got a tanker truck waiting for the location!

I'm guessing you are being facetious, as the equivalent O2 flow would be 3.5-4 liter / min and the truck at 2000 rpm is using at least 6600 liter per min. So there is 20% * 6600 compared to 3.5 + (20% * 6600)
or 1320 liter of O2 compared to 1320 + 3.5 or 1323.5 liter / min of oxygen. A whopping 0.26% enrichment. There is a far greater change in O2 when running the truck at 55 F then at 80F due to changes in density!

OH wait, you knew that.

jb

I'm not getting gasoline for $3 per gallon, nor did I say that I was. I was quoting the article at the link above. The author of that article referred to $3/gal. gasoline, not me. Thus the statement "that article also mentions" and the color coding, and the use of Italic Times Roman font for the actual quotations. In any case, it doesn't greatly change the result that hydrogen is drastically more expensive than gasoline, especially if the cost of hydrogen has also increased.

But, you knew that, right?


As for this: "In order to simulate one of the electrolysis devices as closely as possible, won't you also need an oxygen tank?"

The oxygen flow is indeed insignificant, but so is the hydrogen flow. In order to simulate one of the electrolysis devices as closely as possible, the oxygen should be added too. Otherwise, some other smartass might "guess" or claim that the lack of oxygen caused the test to be flawed.

And you knew that too, right?


Your smug attempts to be clever are not helpful to this discourse, and also don't reflect well on your character.

You should know that as well, but apparently don't.



By the way - since you flippantly asked,
"Can you PLEASE tell me where you are getting gasoline for $3 a gallon? "
Yes - it's even less than $3/gal. - in Mexico. Have a nice trip.

I'm not getting gasoline for $3 per gallon, nor did I say that I was. I was quoting the article at the link above. The author of that article referred to $3/gal. gasoline, not me. Thus the statement "that article also mentions" and the color coding, and the use of Italic Times Roman font for the actual quotations. In any case, it doesn't greatly change the result that hydrogen is drastically more expensive than gasoline, especially if the cost of hydrogen has also increased.

But, you knew that, right?


As for this: "In order to simulate one of the electrolysis devices as closely as possible, won't you also need an oxygen tank?"

The oxygen flow is indeed insignificant, but so is the hydrogen flow. In order to simulate one of the electrolysis devices as closely as possible, the oxygen should be added too. Otherwise, some other smartass might "guess" or claim that the lack of oxygen caused the test to be flawed.

And you knew that too, right?


Your smug attempts to be clever are not helpful to this discourse, and also don't reflect well on your character.

You should know that as well, but apparently don't.



By the way - since you flippantly asked,
"Can you PLEASE tell me where you are getting gasoline for $3 a gallon? "
Yes - it's even less than $3/gal. - in Mexico. Have a nice trip.


Geez dude, grab a grip, switch to decaf and take a chill pill. You apparently don't understand the concept of sarcasm. Nor the ability to parse humor from content. You are more sensitive than I had imagined possible and seem to take every comment as a personal attack. :rolleyes:

My comment was that YOU did understand that, and I explained why it was ludicrous for any one else to expect the outcome to vary due to a microscopic difference in oxygen.

jb

Hi Guys and Gals,
If you you have the time visit the site,look around, and keep in mind tnhybrids has a 100% money back guarantee if not completely satisfied.If you have any questions feel free to email me. kbrace@tnhybrids.com

KBrace,

Do you have any testimonial on long term use of these hydrogen generators on a Duramax as it relates to the engine internals, turbo, exhust, etc.?

Hi Guys and Gals,
If you you have the time visit the site,look around, and keep in mind tnhybrids has a 100% money back guarantee if not completely satisfied.If you have any questions feel free to email me. kbrace@tnhybrids.com

100% money back only if they install it. at a cost of $200 plus any extra parts needed.

It is very interesting, But I must admit I am very skeptical, watching the video it showed one bubble of gas every second or so, The engine was running at 680 RPM seeing as one bubble would be Oxygen and one would be Hydrogen say 1.0 lire per min. On a 6.6 litre engine at 680RPM, that's 4,488 Litre's with no boost. Until someone puts one of these things on a dyno, with a switch on a ten minute run at say 50hp out put and a scan tool that read throttle position or better yet could lock the throttle in one position and the RPM went up when the switch was turned on, say 5min on then 5min off and do it again. Until then, PLAY SAFE!

Can you guys tell me what purity hydrogen tank I need to get? Also Can I use a oxygen or acetylene regulator to regulate it down to 2-8 L per min?

Also a question;

A diesel's rpm and power output are controled by how much fuel is added. so one of these hydrogen generators puts out X liters of hydrogen per min weather or not your idleing or running full throttle. So at idle with the hydrogen generator running, the computer should see the added fuel from the hydrogen and decresse the diesel fuel to keep the idle at 900 Rpm or what ever its set to idle at. Right???

If that is correct you should see a big differance in the amount of diesel being injected, so I could scan the fuel being injected with and without the hydrogen, to see what happens. Right????

Just get the lowest grade hydrogen you can-it's still going to be plenty pure enough. I don't remember what the usual term is, but we call it "junk" grade hydrogen in the lab. When the hydrogen generator for my GC's went down a while back we had to use that grade as an emergency backup and it worked fine. If it's good enough for gas chromatography, it's good enough for your engine.

As for regulators, an oxidizer regulator won't work because the fittings are different. An acetylene regulator usually wouldn't be rated for H2 tank pressure, so that would be out as well. The hydrogen regulators I've used in the lab all say "for hydrogen use only". The gas supplier should be able to hook you up with the correct regulator.

You'll also need a flow meter to set the flow at your desired rate. I think you can come by the bubble-type flow meters relatively cheaply, and that should get you in the ballpark. I don't think you'd need a mass flow meter for what you're doing.

I think I can just use a 2 litter bottle and time how long it takes to fill it up to get it in the ball park? Then i just need a regulator and a shut off valve preferably electric or push button. hook it up and see what happens. Right??

Just get the lowest grade hydrogen you can-it's still going to be plenty pure enough. I don't remember what the usual term is, but we call it "junk" grade hydrogen in the lab. When the hydrogen generator for my GC's went down a while back we had to use that grade as an emergency backup and it worked fine. If it's good enough for gas chromatography, it's good enough for your engine.

As for regulators, an oxidizer regulator won't work because the fittings are different. An acetylene regulator usually wouldn't be rated for H2 tank pressure, so that would be out as well. The hydrogen regulators I've used in the lab all say "for hydrogen use only". The gas supplier should be able to hook you up with the correct regulator.

You'll also need a flow meter to set the flow at your desired rate. I think you can come by the bubble-type flow meters relatively cheaply, and that should get you in the ballpark. I don't think you'd need a mass flow meter for what you're doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL3JeqLyxUc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMEFPgaNj9U

I think this guy had the same idea I had.

If you are interested...YouTube has a ton of videos. Type in "Hydrogen Generator" Check out this link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2-7tp8i1kM

My brother owns a 98 Dodge Cummins 2500 (5-speed/manual) and he just made his own Hydrogen Generator. He has only had it on the truck for a few days. The best mileage he had before the install was 20-21mpg on highway. He made a 130 mile round trip with the generator working and checked his gas mileage after the trip, which turned out to be 26mpg.

He used up about 1/3 of a liter of a mixed water/baking soda solution during the 130 mile trip. His generator holds 1 liter of the mixed solution. I think it's neat, however he doesn't have a second PVC tube like the generator in the link above, so he has a small amount of water going into the intake.

I think I can just use a 2 litter bottle and time how long it takes to fill it up to get it in the ball park? Then i just need a regulator and a shut off valve preferably electric or push button. hook it up and see what happens. Right??

That won't even come close to working to tell your flow. How are you going to know when the bottle is full? Hydrogen is colorless-trust me you'll have zero idea how much is in there or how much is escaping back out around your pipe.

Trust me, gas flow is at the heart of gas chromatography-which is what I do for a living. If you're not going to put some kind of flow meter in line to truly check the flow, don't waste your time and money doing this because the data will be worthless.

Well what I have seen done is you fill a bottle with water put it up side down in a bucket of water and stick the hose from the hydrogen in the bottle, it will fill the bottle with hydrogen and push out all the water. Then time how long it takes to fill the bottle.

How much does a flow meter cost and where can I get one???


That won't even come close to working to tell your flow. How are you going to know when the bottle is full? Hydrogen is colorless-trust me you'll have zero idea how much is in there or how much is escaping back out around your pipe.

Trust me, gas flow is at the heart of gas chromatography-which is what I do for a living. If you're not going to put some kind of flow meter in line to truly check the flow, don't waste your time and money doing this because the data will be worthless.

Alot more info; weather true or not???

http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapt10.html

Needmorepower,

You're idea of volumetric displacement, is not perfect but is close enough to work. You would need to have the plumbing all ready then calibrate and go.


Here's a link that you need to read. The numbers are correct, by the way.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9551919888/m/2321969559

jb

Well what I have seen done is you fill a bottle with water put it up side down in a bucket of water and stick the hose from the hydrogen in the bottle, it will fill the bottle with hydrogen and push out all the water. Then time how long it takes to fill the bottle.

How much does a flow meter cost and where can I get one???

Yeah, that's a good idea-didn't think about that. It'll be a little off-but good enough.

True mass flow meters are several hundred dollars, but a bubble-type flow meter is more reasonable. If you watch Ebay, sometimes you can find them used as surplus for 50 bucks or less.

The owner of the shop that does alot of work on our classics and musclecars called my father yesterday. He had a guy drop off two Hydrogen-Boost kits for gasoline. He wanted to use my dad's pickup (2006 5.3L 1/2-ton), as he puts about 100 miles per day on the truck - mixed city/hwy. The shop owner is going to put the kit on his pickup at no charge to use as a test-bed. So, we'll see what happens. I'll report what we find out.

Well, you can't argue with the price.

Does your dad track fuel usage all the time now?

jb

Check out this Japanese water car YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPq1exwMaUs), pretty cool if you ask me. Hope they start mass production at an affordable price soon.

Does your dad track fuel usage all the time now?

jb

Not in a detailed fashion. He just fills up so much, that he knows how much a week/month. His truck is loaded, so he can track with the DIC. Truck is stock, other than a Flowmaster 70 series muffler. Nothing else. Not even an intake.

Not in a detailed fashion. He just fills up so much, that he knows how much a week/month. His truck is loaded, so he can track with the DIC. Truck is stock, other than a Flowmaster 70 series muffler. Nothing else. Not even an intake.

The DIC mileage is known to be off. Better off to use it to track trends rather than use it as varification.

Not in a detailed fashion. He just fills up so much, that he knows how much a week/month. His truck is loaded, so he can track with the DIC. Truck is stock, other than a Flowmaster 70 series muffler. Nothing else. Not even an intake.


I don't mean to sound like a grump or insulting to you or your dad, but seriously!

He does not know what his current fuel usage is, how can he determine his improvement - or loss from this gizmo?

Driving style is a much more powerful factor in mpg's and your dad being a normal type person will probably feather peddle and go "whoee look at the improvement". But, over time there will be no measurable improvement.

It's the exact reason they "blind" people performing experiments and why the placebo group in medical trials get some improvement in health.

Still, report back with the details of the gizmo and the results.

jb


This is a graph of total miles divided by total gallons after each fill up. The peaks are summers and the valleys are winters and the dips are towing.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/john_bud/Truck/2003Silverad0Milagelog_8187_image00.gif

I don't mean to sound like a grump or insulting to you or your dad, but seriously!

He does not know what his current fuel usage is, how can he determine his improvement - or loss from this gizmo?

Driving style is a much more powerful factor in mpg's and your dad being a normal type person will probably feather peddle and go "whoee look at the improvement". But, over time there will be no measurable improvement.

It's the exact reason they "blind" people performing experiments and why the placebo group in medical trials get some improvement in health.

Still, report back with the details of the gizmo and the results.

jb


This is a graph of total miles divided by total gallons after each fill up. The peaks are summers and the valleys are winters and the dips are towing.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c201/john_bud/Truck/2003Silverad0Milagelog_8187_image00.gif

Well, sorry if our test isn't up to your standards. Just don't worry about it, you'll live longer. He'll know how much less he has to stop for fuel. He keeps receipts, so he can always figure it that way. Plus, you can turn it off and on, so he could run a tank with it on and a tank with it off. Sheeze. Relax.

Obviously you did not take Cougar's criticism well, but you are attacking the messenger while ignoring the message. It's not just that your test is not up to HIS standards; it isn't up to ANY standards. The test, as sketched out, is 100% useless, unfortunately, so it's not going to do any of the rest of us any good. Cougar is 100% correct in his comments on the scientific method. If you do it your way, you 'ain't got nuthin'!' Do what you want, of course--that goes without saying. If it helps you keep the faith--great! Let's just say that the state of the art will not be advanced by this method. I've heard Diesel Secret works great, too. I know because a friend of mine knows this guy whose brother got a 50% mileage improvement by using it. I've heard he's really smart and have no reason to doubt him so it must be true.

Look. I think the hydrogen thing is interesting. We'll see if it works. But, basically, I don't tell you how to run your tests. So, don't tell me how to do mine. I just simply thought I would post info. For those that are interested - great. If you don't like the way it's going to be run, then don't look and don't comment. That's just rude.

I understand what is being said. Some want a test where every single drop is recorded. That's fine, that's one way. You have understand that this man fills up every two days or so. He runs the same routes day after day, so he'll know how often he will or will not have to fill up if there is any change in mileage. He already has 86,000 miles on his 2006 pickup, so it would be a total nuisance to record every gallon of gas.

I was wondering if hydrogen injection would work on a diesel and if it would be cost effective? I know a guy that just rigged up a system on a 302 ford engine. Simple system that cost less than 100 bucks. He swears his my mileage increased by 50 to 60 percent. He claimed it would work on a diesel but I would have to see it. I guess time will tell.

I was wondering if hydrogen injection would work on a diesel and if it would be cost effective? I know a guy that just rigged up a system on a 302 ford engine. Simple system that cost less than 100 bucks. He swears his my mileage increased by 50 to 60 percent. He claimed it would work on a diesel but I would have to see it. I guess time will tell.

They SAY it works just as well.

Look. I think the hydrogen thing is interesting.

Hey don't listen to them! Any info you can give us will be greatly appreciated!!! Thanks and keep us posted!!!

Well, sorry if our test isn't up to your standards. Just don't worry about it, you'll live longer. He'll know how much less he has to stop for fuel. He keeps receipts, so he can always figure it that way. Plus, you can turn it off and on, so he could run a tank with it on and a tank with it off. Sheeze. Relax.


Hey, I am relaxed. Glad that you are too. I just pointed out that it's difficult to know if there is an improvement if you don't know the baseline. My truck goes from 11 to 22 mpg depending on where I fuel and what it hauls. For my truck, unless the gizmo were to pop it up significantly higher than 22 or drops it significantly lower than 11 it's very hard to tell if it did anything. Close tracking allows for smaller changes to be noticed. I'm surprised that he does not track every gallon, most guys that run their own business's do track costs closely. Some of my pals have determined some stations are either selling fuel with less energy or are short stroking the pump by tracking milage from those stations compared to other stations. They always get fewer mpg from them, now they avoid them and average higher mpg (and more importantly to them, lower operating costs.)


Smart ass comment alert!


Enjoy the gains while you have them as everyone knows as soon as the gizmo is installed and you post the 50% gain in mpg's the black suits will drop out of the black helicopers and take it away, so the oil companies profit will stay super high and the government tax revenues will be even higher. ;)

But seriously, Let us know how it goes. My expectations for this type of device are low, but it would be fun to be wrong.

jb

I was talking to a heavy duty mechanic from finning the other night about alternate fuels. He has the same truck as me ('cept not as nice) and said "his buddy" who also has a duramax has been experimenting with hydrogen and said he made a trip from Prince George BC to the Edmonton Alberta area on hydrogen. I don't believe him. Hydrogen is great in theory but if it were that easy, they'd be readily available.

I was talking to a heavy duty mechanic from finning the other night about alternate fuels. He has the same truck as me ('cept not as nice) and said "his buddy" who also has a duramax has been experimenting with hydrogen and said he made a trip from Prince George BC to the Edmonton Alberta area on hydrogen. I don't believe him. Hydrogen is great in theory but if it were that easy, they'd be readily available.


You have a good point. If I had a buddy with a system that used water -> hydrogen in a truck like mine and it was WORKING, all you'd see would be assholes and elbows until there was one like it on MY truck too!

Next time his buddy is around, ask to go on a long run with him. It would be interesting to see one in action.

I did read a great quote from Carl Sagan that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". Carl, being dead for a while wasn't refering to this topic, but the standard that science holds new and exciting breakthroughs to. When the standards are ignored, fubar's usually pop up. Cold fusion, human cloning in Korea, anti-gravity on Altera 4, you name it and when the proofs are ignored the whacky claims gain strength with the media but they eventually fall down (with little media fan fare. Now some do prove out like the warp drive used in experimental craft out of Area 51, but that is rare.:rolleyes:

I am one that has always been weary of "snake oil". So, again, we'll see how it goes.

I'm glad you get my drift. I am sure everyone would love a play by play / gal per gal / mile by mile dealio. We simply don't have that kind of time. So, it will be more of a "number of fillups" or gallons per week difference. Plus, it's not ME doing the test, it's my father and he is 60 miles away from me. I could probably have more data if it were my own vehicle.

If there is ANYTHING significant, I will let all know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen

I am one that has always been weary of "snake oil". So, again, we'll see how it goes.

I'm glad you get my drift. I am sure everyone would love a play by play / gal per gal / mile by mile dealio. We simply don't have that kind of time. So, it will be more of a "number of fillups" or gallons per week difference. Plus, it's not ME doing the test, it's my father and he is 60 miles away from me. I could probably have more data if it were my own vehicle.

If there is ANYTHING significant, I will let all know.


Like I said before, the price is right ! Maybe he will be able to see a change - the wiki link seems to share my skeptical view, but being from Missouri I like to be shown.

Keep us informed of developments and remind him to keep the "bubbler" portion of the gizmo watered. The gas is flamable and you wouldn't want to back propagate the flame into the source ! Can you say, Hindenberg?

Like I said before, the price is right ! Maybe he will be able to see a change - the wiki link seems to share my skeptical view, but being from Missouri I like to be shown.

Keep us informed of developments and remind him to keep the "bubbler" portion of the gizmo watered. The gas is flamable and you wouldn't want to back propagate the flame into the source ! Can you say, Hindenberg?

I fully understand the "seeing is believing" thing, as I am that way with most everything. It's all good.

Yeah, about the price, hey - if it works, fine / if not, fine. It went in today.

Awsome, with the miles your dad is driving he should see something fairly soon.

jb

Awsome, with the miles your dad is driving he should see something fairly soon.

jb
I would think so.

It may take some time to get some valuable data, as he has a long-bed (34 gal tank). A short bed would show results quicker, I would think, since there is more "activity" at the fuel pump(s). Still, that even may be a moot point, since he fills up twice a week anyway.

Neat, be sure to update!

I would think so.

It may take some time to get some valuable data, as he has a long-bed (34 gal tank). A short bed would show results quicker, I would think, since there is more "activity" at the fuel pump(s). Still, that even may be a moot point, since he fills up twice a week anyway.


So, he should have some preliminary results by now, eh? At least a feeling that the fuel gage is dropping faster/slower/the same as before.:)

jb

http://www.globaltech.ca/

here's an expensive system that installs on big rigs

So, he should have some preliminary results by now, eh? At least a feeling that the fuel gage is dropping faster/slower/the same as before.:)

jb

Truck got dropped off Mon afternoon. He MIGHT have got it back today.

http://www.globaltech.ca/

here's an expensive system that installs on big rigs


It smells like a scam to me. I dug into it. Here are the things that stink like a pig farm.

1) They have a patented product. But don't list the patent number anywhere. If you don't list the patent number, you are not protected by the patent law (or your case is much weakened)

2) They list a couple of very old technical papers on the hydrogen benefits, etc. But, they don't have copies of the papers on the web site for viewing or downloading. Not even a link to the original papers.

3) Customer testimonials are ALL from companies that install the product. No independant testimonials. NONE.

4) they claim 4 liters of distilled water and 13 amps for 10,000 miles of driving. Big rig mpg's are listed as 5.39 inital going to 6.9 and up to 7.1 mpg. Well, lets see. 10,000 miles at 7.1 mpg is = 1408 gallons of diesel. 10,000 miles at the baseline of 5.39 mpt = 1855 gallon of diesel. So, the hydrogen from 1 gallon of water is replacing 450 gallons of diesel. (?) The only way that is occuring is to convert the water mass to energy via a nuclear process. There isn't any nuke signs on the truck....nor is that a possible process.

5) the pictures of their buildings have photoshopped company signs added on to the pictures.

If it stinks like a pig farm, squishes like a pig farm and promotes growth like a pig farm, but you don't see any pigs, it must be the leavings from a pig farm....

I would put it on my unit but I live in the mountains and with all that extra power, how would I ever slow down. I can still remember when the BS of the day was COW MAGNETS they had them in the fuel tanks and wrapped around the fuel lines and these dip-shits swore they got an extra mile per gallon. Any body wants some I can get them just down the road and am willing to part with them for $100.00 Canadian and for an extra $10.00 I will bless them. I will guarantee they work unless of course you are an unworthy person. PLAY SAFE! Send the money to Box 29 Rock Creek. B.C. V0H 1Y0.

Well, typical dealio, the truck went in, but came out without said unit installed. Something about the kit being incomplete / wrong. So, they put it off for now to investigate the problem. We'll see what happens in the next few weeks.

Well don't forget about us here, when the magic happens we expect to hear about it!

luck,
jb

3.78 Liters in a gallon

If you get 20 mpg and you driving along at 60 mph your using 1 gallon every 20 minets or 20 miles. thats 0.05 gallons per min or mile. Or 0.189 liters per min of diesel fuel. so it you are giving it 1.5 Liters per min of hydrogen that alot!!! Someone check my math! please corect me if Im wrong.

Hydrogen/oxygen are gasses, and will be used at 6.6 liters per 2 revs on a 4 stroke diesel. The only way this can get more mpg from your gasoline would be if the amount of gasoline were reduced proportionally to the hydrogen/oxygen mixture. Diesels, I see no benefit, other than marginally more power, because diesels already burn the fuel in a oxygen rich environment (more air than needed). I don't see this thing at 1 liter per minute providing much other than additional drag on the engine (alternator) through electrolysis of the water.

Since I was on here saying I don't believe people I trust say they have heard good things about it. My mind is not made up, Has anyone talked to Cummins or GM, or Ford even and seen if there are any Warranty issues. Someone hear must have a inside contact that can give us some inside information, and straight goods. PLAY SAFE!

Alright, I'll add a little fuel to the fire. I haven't seen it yet, but I know someone who IS running a couple of gasoline vehicles with "HHO generators" and claims significant increase in fuel mileage. He is in no way affiliated with any company that profits from selling kits.
For an explanation of how it works I found this. I'm not a scientist but it sounds feasible...

HHO
The technology of using hydrogen as a combustion enhancement in internal combustion engines has been researched and proven for many years. The benefits are factual and well documented. Our own utilization of this technology. i.e. the hydrogen injection system, has also been tested and proven both by institutions and in hundreds of practical applications in road vehicles. Here is a synopsis of a sampling of the research that has been done: In 1974 John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled "On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine". In 1974 F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, entitled "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline."
In the early eighties George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor, designed and patented a device to transform internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. He later affirms: "A small amount of hydrogen added to the air intake of a gasoline engine would enhance the flame velocity and thus permit the engine to operate with leaner air to gasoline mixture than otherwise possible. The result, far less pollution with more power and better mileage."
In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the Birmingham, of University Engineering, Mechanical and Manufacturing>, demonstrated the advantages of "Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming." The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.
Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association states the "Use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities and conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions" and that "Using hydrogen as a combustion stimulant it is possible for other fuels to meet future requirements for lower exhaust emissions in California and an increasing number of additional states. Relatively small amounts of hydrogen can dramatically increase horsepower and reduce exhaust emissions." At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, June 26-29, 1995, a group of scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK, presented a study about hydrogen as a fraction of the fuel. In the abstract of that study it stated: "Hydrogen, when used as a fractional additive at extreme lean engine operation, yields benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions."
In the Spring of 1997, at an international conference held by the University of Calgary, a team of scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China, presented a mathematical model for the process of formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines. Using the theory of chemical dynamics of combustion, the group elaborated an explanation of the mechanism of forming toxic emissions in spark ignition engines. The results of their experimental investigation conclude that because of the characteristics of hydrogen,
the mixture can rapidly burn in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines, thus toxic emissions are restrained. These studies and other research on hydrogen as a fuel supplement generated big efforts in trying to develop practical systems to enhance internal combustion engine performance. A few of them materialized in patented devices that didn't’t reach the level of performance, safety or feasibility that would allow them to reach marketing stages. California Environmental Engineering (CEE) has tested this technology and found reduction on all exhaust emissions. They subsequently stated: "CEE feels that the result of this test verifies that this technology is a viable source for reducing emissions and fuel consumption on large diesel engines." The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab tested this technology and proved that: "Emissions test results indicate that a decrease of toxic emissions was realized." Again, zero emissions were observed on CO. Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Vehicle subjected to dynamometer loading in controlled conditions showed drastic reduction of emissions and improved horsepower. Corrections Canada tested several systems and concluded, "The hydrogen system is a valuable tool in helping Corrections Canada meet the overall Green Plan by: reducing vehicle emissions down to an acceptable level and meeting the stringent emissions standard set out by California and British Columbia; reducing the amount of fuel consumed by increased mileage." Additionally, their analysis pointed out that this solution is the most cost effective. For their research they granted the C.S.C. Environmental Award. We also conducted extensive testing in order to prove reliability and determine safety and performance of the components and the entire system. As a result of these tests, we achieved important breakthroughs as far as the designs of the components were concerned. We have since increased the hydrogen/oxygen production significantly. This has resulted in increased effectiveness on engine performance. The results of these tests were able to confirm the claims made about this technology: the emissions will be reduced, the horsepower will increase and the fuel consumption will be reduced. From researching the Internet we also found the following information To best describe how Hydrogen Enhanced Combustion works, we are providing this excerpt from a University Technical Report, written by Mr. George Vosper, P.Eng.; ...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 fewof them say the idea won't work. Such opinions, from engineers can't be dismissed without explainingwhy 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. A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974 concluded: The J.P.L. concept has unquestionably demonstrated that the addition of small quantities of gaseous hydrogen to the primary gasoline significantly reduces CO and NOx exhaust emissions while improving engine thermal efficiency. A recent study at the University of Calgary by G.A. Karim on the effect of adding hydrogen to amethane-fuelled engine says... The addition of some hydrogen to the methane, speeds up the rates of initiation and subsequent propagation of flames over the whole combustible mixture range, including for very fast flowing mixtures. This enhancement of flame initiation and subsequent flame propagation, reduces the Ignition delay and combustion period in both spark ignition and compression ignition engines which should lead to noticeable improvements in the combustion process and performance
What happens inside the combustion chamber is still only a guess. In an earlier explanation I suggested that the extremely rapid flame speed of the added hydrogen oxygen interspersed through the main fuel air mix, gives the whole mix a much faster flame rate. Dr. Brant Peppley, Hydrogen Systems Group, Royal Military College, Kingston, has convinced me that insufficient hydrogen is produced to have much effect by just burning it. He feel's that the faster burn is most likely due to the presence of nascent (atomic) hydrogen and nascent oxygen, which initiate a chain reaction. I now completely agree. Electrolysis produces "nascent" hydrogen, and oxygen, which may or may not reach the engine as nascent. It is more probable that high temperature in the combustion chamber breaks down the oxygen and hydrogen molecules into free radicals (i.e. nascent). The chain reaction initiated by those free radicals will cause a simultaneous ignition of all the primary fuel. As it all ignites at once, no flame front can exist and without it there is no pressure wave to create knock. 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 forgoing, 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. Assume a fuel-air mix is so lean as to normally take the entire power stroke (180°) to complete combustion. Educated estimates suggest the presence of nascent hydrogen and oxygen decreases the burn time of the entire mix by a factor of ten (10). If a spark advance of 4°is assumed, the burn would be complete at about 14° past top dead centre. Such a burn will be both rapid and intense. The piston would have moved less than 2% of its stroke by the end of the burn, allowing over 98% of its travel to extract work. The lower exhaust manifold temperatures observed when the Hydrogen Generating System was in use can be viewed as evidence for this occurrence. Power consumed by this model of the electrolysis cell is about 100 watts.
If an alternator efficiency of 60% is assumed, then 0.2233 horsepower will produce enough wattage.
Even on a compact car, a unit would use less than 1/4 % of its engine's output, or about what is used by the headlights. The energy regained from burning the hydrogen in the engine is so small that virtually all of the power to the electrolyser must be considered lost. That loss should not, however, exceed V4%, so that any increase in the engine's thermal efficiency more than 1/4 %, is a real gain.
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. While the auto industry searches for the perfect means of eliminating harmful emissions, consideration should be given to what these systems can do now, since the HGS considers reduction of harmful
emissions even as the engine ages. Almost all unburned hydrocarbons, CO and NO,, are eliminated.
Reducing hydrocarbons and CO causes a slight rise in the percentage of CO2 in the exhaust, but as less fuel is used, the actual quantity of CO2 produced is reduced by roughly the same ratio as the savings in fuel. In brief, noxious gas is almost eliminated and greenhouse gas is decreased in proportion to the reduction in fuel consumption. Nothing I have learned so far has lessened my belief that the benefits of using electrolysis units to supply hydrogen to most types of internal combustion engines are both real and considerable. Reprinted with the permission of George Vosper, P. Eng. June1998 Roy E. McAlister, P.E. President of American Hydrogen Association
INTRODUCTION
The carbon equivalent of 180 million barrels of oil are burned each day to support the Earth's growingpopulation of 5 billion persons search for prosperity. Carbon dioxide built up in the atmosphere has reached levels that are about 30 per cent higher than at any time in the last 160 years. Environmentaldamage and health threats due to air pollution have reached every area of the planet. Continued dependence upon fossil fuels is detrimental to public health and is a dangerous experiment that may have no point of return for civilization, as we know it. Nine Americans die each hour due to air pollution.
U.S. Energy expenditures amount to about 440 billion dollars per year. About 50 percent of our energy is produced from foreign oil. U.S. military presence throughout the planet's oil-rich areas to secure the oil supply lines costs hundreds of billions of dollars each year. These great expenses curb investment in capital goods and our economy suffers. Finding a solution to the difficult problems of energy sufficiency, environmental damage, and air pollution is imperative.
The solution must provide convenience for near-term market acceptance and utilize renewable resources.
HYDROGEN AS A COMBUSTION STIMULANT
Hydrogen burns more rapidly than hydrocarbon fuels because it is smaller and enters combustion reactions at higher velocity, has lower activation energy, and incurs more molecular collisions than heavier molecules. These characteristics make it possible to use mixtures of hydrogen with conventional hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline, diesel and propane to reduce emissions of unburned hydrocarbons.
Transition from fossil fuels to renewable hydrogen by use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities with conventional fuels offers significant reductions in exhaust emissions. Using hydrogen as a combustion stimulant makes it possible for other fuels to meet future requirements for lower exhaust emissions in California and an increasing number of additional States. 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. Reprinted from an AHA Newsletter

Very interesting information. Now, one simple question: IF all this ground-breaking science in the mid 1990's was SO MAGICALLY wonderful, why is HHO still being cobbled up in garages and run around the internet along with "black helicopter" and "big oil hit squad" looney conspiracy theories? Hmmmmmm? Could it be that no big industrial or auto company ever realized how wonderful this is? OR is it more likely that after the research it was SCIENTIFICALLY determined that it was a non-viable and inefficient process that would yield no real-world gains worth manufacturing? If it were as good as the hype, big players would have invested big bucks and made big profits incorporating it into internal combustion engines around the globe. Set down the Kool-Aid for a minute and think about it.

I am going to install a small conversion. I will let you know how it works.

It is a proven fact that hydrogen fumigation helps fuel economy with combustion of lean mixtures.


All good scams start with a factual statement, then take a left turn and rob you blind. On gasoline engines, you can lean the fuel mixture down to 25:1 or even leaner. So lean that it WON'T FIRE from the spark. Then add hydrogen and the spark ignites the hydrogen and the hydrogen ignites the gasoline mixture. That actually works and can provide gains in economy. The cost is drastically higher combustion temperatures and stupendously higher NOx production.

Several problems. One is the amount of hydrogen needed. Most of the kits on the market are not providing enough hydrogen to do the deed. Should have about 10% hydrogen gas content in the air. Using a duramax on the hyway at 2000 rpm and 0 psi pressure turbo, you would need to generate 660 liters of gas per minute to meet the 10% value. (2000 rpm * 6.6 liter displacement * 1 intake stroke / 2 rotations = 6600 liters/minute) The math is easy, the generation of that much hydrogen is hard. A commercial dedicated purpose built electrolytic cell requires 50kw to generate 1 kg of hydrogen. That is enough to power a sleak aero 1200# fuel cell car's electric motors about 65 miles. If you powered that cell from a car or truck's 12v system it would take 4166 amps of current. The DIY kits are about 1/2 as efficient so the amp draw would be 2x. Think the lights might dim?

Next issue is that you have to make several MAJOR changes to actually run in the hyper lean region to get the gains. Different o2 sensor, different injectors to more finely meter the smaller quantity of fuel, different spark timing to account for the different mixture, different ECM map, etc. Then you have to be able to run either with or without the hydrogen. Not easy.

Now, think about how much hydrogen is actually being produced. Most places kits (and the DIY kits) are 1 liter / minute of total gas or less. The bulk of the reports are 1/2 to 3/4 liter per minute of total gas. Let's be generous and assume 1 liter (makes the "dura-math" simpler). That's 1/3 liter of O2 and 2/3 liter of H2. Let's call it 0.66 liter per minute. To get best results, you should have 10% or 660 liter, but the kits put out 1000x less. That's fairly significant, being off by 1000X! It's like saying you can buy a new diesel truck for 40 bucks. Or you get 22,000 miles per gallon. Or your wanker is 800 feet long. Pretty ridiculous (unless you're a porn star or a politician, even then it's a stretch).

I have asked in several places for people to post long term fuel & mile information for a vehicle before adding and after adding hho. To date, no person has been bold enough to post. I'd like this to be real. I really would, as saving 10-50% on fuel would be a good thing. But, extraordinary claims really need extraordinary proofs. No offense, but saying a second cousin's girl friend's uncle knows a guy at the barber shop with good results falls short of proof. Especially as the EPA has many documents showing driver ability can impact economy by 30% and mechanical condition can impact it by 20% (or more --depending on what's wrong!). My truck has given mpg's anywhere from 10.something to 22.51 mpg. To have a statistically valid determination of a change (positive or negative) requires a number of fill ups and a significant change. The smaller the change, the greater the number of fillups needed to detect it.

Still, all is not known under heaven and upon earth. Just keep your skeptic hat on tight and don't spend too much messing with it. When you compare mpg's use 5 fill up averages. (add the miles for the last 5 fillups and divide by the total gallons).

Luck,
jb

Cougar,
I have been absent for a while, but was doing some reading on this subject. I wish I could remember which site it was on but they were talking about the 10% hydrogen mix for the burn yadda yadda yadda...
But the thing they were talking about was hydrogen in proportion to your other hydrocarbon fuel, not in proportion to your engines displacement. So if their logic is followed the numbers seem to work out.
If you are getting 15 miles per gallon at 60 mph you are burning 4 gallons of diesel per hour. You would then (according to them) need to be injecting .4 gallons of hydrogen per hour. Most of the designs being touted on the various websites claim to be capable of producing this much easily.
I will see if I can find that website again and give you the URL for it. I think it was some free energy site based in the UK.

Now if they are talking mass of fuel to mass of hydrogen it looks like a problem again......

Since all we have is theory and speculation How about the Diesel PLace owners contact a couple of Hydro Gererator mfg and get some samples we can test on a dyno and GET THE DATA. If its all they claim and we can prove it THen they will sell a million of them off this Forum.

No updates??

No updates??

I think it may be opposite of that old saying, "No news is good news" - ?

I am amazed at the amount of Pseudo-Scientific analyses that's in this thread as to why HHO injection would not work.

HHO injection DOES WORK. Naysayers of the process are most of the time people with no engineering training and always stem from an incomplete (and frankly faulty) understanding of the "Conservation of Energy" principle (Simplistically aka 1st Law of Thermodynamics).

The reasoning always centers on the BTU content of HHO and how miniscule it is compared to the BTU of diesel, that it couldn't possibly have any significant effect. This would be true if indeed HHO was being used as a 'fuel' for its BTU content. In fact, HHO is not being used that way. HHO is not being combusted for its BTU content. HHO is injected for its effect on the combustion properties of the primary fuel. HHO significantly modifies the combustion characteristic of the primary fuel. Injection of HHO causes the flame to be more 'homogeneous' and causes faster combustion of the fuel. This is not surprising since hydrogen flame propagation rates are 300% faster than that of diesel. Introduction of HHO causes the entire fuel charge to be combusted significantly faster and more homogeneously. Complete combustion occurs faster, with more equalized temperature gradients within the cylinder resulting in more thermal efficiency. (It has been proven time and time again how HHO injection causes less NOx emissions. This is due to the more homogeneous combustion.)

Now, let's look at the real engineering behind how faster combustion could improve engine efficiency.

The link below explains the 'Ideal' Diesel Thermodynamic Cycle. (Please understand that the steps of this Diesel Cycle is NOT the four steps of the engine: Power, Exhuast, Intake and Compressions strokes. Step 2-3 and 3-4 are steps that occur during the Power stroke, 4-1 and 1-2 occurs during the Compression stroke. The Exhaust and Intake strokes are NOT thermodynamic steps.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_cycle)

Study carefully the formula for 'Maximum Thermal Efficiency'. This formula governs the amount of 'work' that can be derived during the power stroke.

Combustion of injected diesel occurs during the Adiabatic step (points 2 to 3). This Adiabatic step occurs between Volume3 and Volume2. Note that Volume3 is always greater than Volume2. during the movement of the piston downward. Note that the closer Volume3 is to Volume2, the 'cutoff ratio' Volume3/Volume2 is closer to the value 1. (It is always greater than 1 since V3 is always greater than V2).

Examine the formula again very very carefully this time. Note that the Efficiency increases as the cutoff ratio V3/V3 is closer to the value of 1. The higher this ratio is, the less Thermal Efficiency can be achieved.

How is this relevant to HHO injection? Very simple. HHO injection causes the fuel mix to burn faster. With HHO, the Diesel fuel mix completely burns before the piston has a chance to move downward. What this means is V3 is only slightly larger than V2. The cutoff ratio then becomes closer to 1, hence Thermal Efficiency is higher. More work is achieved, more power = more MPG.

The diagram is of course for an Ideal Diesel Cycle. However, it is clear that the lower the value of the cutoff ratio is, the higher the efficiency.

There you have it, a scientific explanation of why HHO injection works and is a not a scam.

BTW, if I had an HHO system that I have positive results on, I would certainly not share it in this forum given the amount of cynicism displayed by many here who do not truly understand this. Cut down on the misplaced cynicism and maybe people will start reporting their results. Do not whine if the testing procedure is not 'up to your standards'. Maybe people just don't want the added expense and effort of a rigorous testing regime, when they can clearly see improvement, which is good enough for them.

Hi jojo,

I've seen your name on the HHO forums. So I know you are a proponent, if not a seller of the technology.

I do have an engineering degree. HHO is a scam. The SAE papers that are quoted are rarely published by the HHO scammers. Why? It details that the % hydrogen added was between 5% and 10%. Hydrogen is not combustible below 4%, that's why they went with a lower level of 5%. So, how does adding a gas at non-combustible concentrations help ? I guess my degree doesn't count, what about the degree's the guys at popular mechanics have that also tested it and showed it to be a scam? Oh well, doesn't matter to me anyway. If it makes you happy - enjoy.

Also, at freeway speeds you would need to generate 264 liters of hydrogen or 396 liters of so called HHO gas per minute to reach 4% concentration of hydrogen when added to a duramax at 2000 rpm. Assuming zero psig intake pressure. In reality, the intake pressure is more than zero so the quantity of gas would need to be greater.

Since, I've seen you posting on HHO forums, why don't you post here and share your experience? Or include a link to your hho forum of choice that has your experience already documented?

Hi jojo,

I've seen your name on the HHO forums. So I know you are a proponent, if not a seller of the technology.

I do have an engineering degree. HHO is a scam. The SAE papers that are quoted are rarely published by the HHO scammers. Why? It details that the % hydrogen added was between 5% and 10%. Hydrogen is not combustible below 4%, that's why they went with a lower level of 5%. So, how does adding a gas at non-combustible concentrations help ? I guess my degree doesn't count, what about the degree's the guys at popular mechanics have that also tested it and showed it to be a scam? Oh well, doesn't matter to me anyway. If it makes you happy - enjoy.

Also, at freeway speeds you would need to generate 264 liters of hydrogen or 396 liters of so called HHO gas per minute to reach 4% concentration of hydrogen when added to a duramax at 2000 rpm. Assuming zero psig intake pressure. In reality, the intake pressure is more than zero so the quantity of gas would need to be greater.

Since, I've seen you posting on HHO forums, why don't you post here and share your experience? Or include a link to your hho forum of choice that has your experience already documented?

It is interesting that for a stern unbeliever of this technology, you seem to spend a lot of time researching it in HHO forums.

Not that there is anythig wrong with American Capitalism, but no, I am not a seller of these things. I am researching the HHO forums to come up with a better design. More HHO with less amps.

As someone who has an 'Engineering' degree, you don't seem to have a good understand of many thermodynamic principles. What about the explanation of the Diesel Cycle I have above? Is that wrong too? The equations prove you incorrect.

What makes you think HHO is not combustible below 4%? (Insult removed by moderator) Of course, HHO is combustible at concentrations way below 4%. It has been demonstrated many times in youtube demos of HHO generator outputs, which are below 4%. The 4% concentration you are referring to is the 'self-ignition' concentration, not the minimum concentration for combusting it.

Given the cynicism you have demonstrated, I would not go thru the effort of posting my results here. I already know what will happen. You will just turn around and claim that my testing regime is not rigorous enough. Well, quite frankly, given your hostility to this technology, I will not spend the extra time, money and resources to have a rigorous testing regime for your benefit. If you want the answers, you will have to do your own 'rigorous testing regime'. But for pete's sake, do not misinform people about this technology without hard data to back you up. All you have is faulty theoritical analysis of why it won't work stemming from your incomplete and faulty understanding of many engineering principles. Just go ahead and invest a few hundred dollars and test it out yourself. Surely, you can afford a few hundred dollars with your high paying 'Engineering degree' job.

BTW, according to Aerodynamic Laws, Bumblebees should not be able to fly. It is this same incomplete understanding of many scientific laws that you are now using to claim that this won't work. After pointing out to you how your understanding is faulty, you still cling to this incomplete understanding.

Also, to the charge of why car makers have not incorporated this technology, the answer is simple. It is the same reason why we don't have fully Electric vehicles, why we don't have engines for WVO, why we don't have fuel cell cars, why we don't have good diesel engine choices, why we don't have too many hybrid choices, or plug-in hybrids, etc. Big corporations have a vested interest in wringing out the most they can from existing investment in existing technologies. And yes, there is a consipiracy to keep some of these technologies out of the public's hands.

Guys: Please no insults, and keep this discussion professional. You both appear to me to be very knowledgeable on this topic. Please keep this on the up and up or else it will be locked down! I have edited out the insult.
Thanks

DP Staff

jojo,

Thanks for being dispassionate and open minded enough to engage in a conversation without insults. You wouldn't want to be confused with a person that stoops to personal attacks as that is a 100% sure sign of a debator knowing they are on the losing side, have no facts to back them up , etc.

Maybe you don't comprehend the definition of "flamability limits"? I know, when I went to engineering school they didn't use low quality utube videos from anonymous sources as the gospel for showing engineering and scientific priciples, they used books and lab work -- maybe my learn'n was just plain wrong! After all, it was based on scientific principles that if you can't duplicate an experimental result then there is a bit of bother going on. That bit of bother is called BS or Bad Science.

As far as money to waste to prove or disprove - I'm retired and don't feel the need to blow money to prove that a scam is a scam (again). People that have both degrees and money have proven the scam is a scam. Check out Popular Mechanics. Or do you think they are a shill for "big oil"? Maybe check out the US government department of energy web site (I think that's the one - could be wrong), they have evaluated 50+ mpg improving gizmos and have found nearly all to be at best neutral and a large fraction actually lose mpgs.

You might remember a guy name of Carl Sagan. He has passed away now, but at one point he was fairly well known as a scientist. Not a shill for big oil or the auto industry. In fact, he was a well known pot head. Hardly the type to be part of a hugh global conspiracy that has been going on in complete secret for 75 years. He had a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. I see extraordinary emotion from you, but no proofs. Not even ordinary ones. In fact, you are strongly avoiding presenting any proof at all or even a link to a site where you have already presented your data. That type of unwillingness to have your work objectively evaluated is a key herald of faulty science.

Have a great day,
jb

jojo,

Thanks for being dispassionate and open minded enough to engage in a conversation without insults. You wouldn't want to be confused with a person that stoops to personal attacks as that is a 100% sure sign of a debator knowing they are on the losing side, have no facts to back them up , etc.

Maybe you don't comprehend the definition of "flamability limits"? I know, when I went to engineering school they didn't use low quality utube videos from anonymous sources as the gospel for showing engineering and scientific priciples, they used books and lab work -- maybe my learn'n was just plain wrong! After all, it was based on scientific principles that if you can't duplicate an experimental result then there is a bit of bother going on. That bit of bother is called BS or Bad Science.

As far as money to waste to prove or disprove - I'm retired and don't feel the need to blow money to prove that a scam is a scam (again). People that have both degrees and money have proven the scam is a scam. Check out Popular Mechanics. Or do you think they are a shill for "big oil"? Maybe check out the US government department of energy web site (I think that's the one - could be wrong), they have evaluated 50+ mpg improving gizmos and have found nearly all to be at best neutral and a large fraction actually lose mpgs.

You might remember a guy name of Carl Sagan. He has passed away now, but at one point he was fairly well known as a scientist. Not a shill for big oil or the auto industry. In fact, he was a well known pot head. Hardly the type to be part of a hugh global conspiracy that has been going on in complete secret for 75 years. He had a saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. I see extraordinary emotion from you, but no proofs. Not even ordinary ones. In fact, you are strongly avoiding presenting any proof at all or even a link to a site where you have already presented your data. That type of unwillingness to have your work objectively evaluated is a key herald of faulty science.

Have a great day,
jb

WHATEVER !!!!

You and your engineers at PM or whatever probably said that based on scientific evidence, that I can not run my Duramax on WVO. And yet, I have over 40,000 miles on it and running strong. All you 'intellectual types' simply don't know how to think outside the box. Trust me, I know, I am one of those 'Intellectual types' who always struggles to try to think outside of the box.

Go ahead and waste your money on Terrorists OIL while I save money on a technology that you do not fully understand and hence ridicule because of your incomplete understanding of it. Do not claim scientific evidence for your argument. As already pointed out to you, your understanding of it is incomplete and faulty. You can not even see the fact that you are not seeing the entire picture. The first part of learning is learning what you do not know. You have not reached that yet. You are still wrapped up in your incomplete understanding of the Conservation of Energy Principle.

Many times, our scientific understanding is incomplete. One should embrace this and learn from it. Engineers for a while thought that based on Aerodynamic laws, a bumblebee should not be able to fly. Yet, we can clearly see bees flying. So, we went back to our equations and modified it to account for lift created by 'turbulent' air flow allowing us to explain how bees could generate enough lift for flight.

For a while there, we thought that Newton's laws of gravitation fully explained the motion of planets and large scale solar systems. Yet it was found to be incomplete, and Einstein's Theory of General Relativity modified it and made it more complete.

For sometime there, we thought that the atom was the most basic element. That was found to be incomplete as well. We now have an understanding of a world composed of subatomic particles and governed by equations that rely on probabilities instead of straight numbers. The world of quantum mechanics made our understanding of the periodic table more complete.

Today, we rely on Faraday's laws to explain electrolysis efficiency and many claim that based on these laws, on board electrolysis could never be efficient enough to make a difference. You, among others are basically making that argument. And yet, we know that Faraday did not have access to sophisticated metal alloys for his electrodes. Nor did he have access to advanced electronic circuitry for creating 'resonance', or inductive feedback loops for creating modulated pulses. Don't you think that it might be possible that Faraday's electrolysis laws might be incomplete, that once exotic alloys and resonance are used, that electrolysis efficiency might increase? Increase enough to make a difference. A difference that many have seen and documented and proved in repeatable settings?

Think about what I've said. Maybe you'll start to think more outside the box.

Amongst all of your talk about re-visits to determine why a bumble bee can fly and all of that whatnot, Jo Jo, I believe that you fail to realize that when the topic that you are discussing is re-visited time and time again, the outcome is the same every time. Change the equasion as much as you like, the outcome has been the same for every independant test that I have ever come across. And for those that do report an increase in mileage: they have always found it is caused by something different. "First thing this spring I'm gonna try one of those HHO generators and see how it does..." Of course failing to realize that diesel's average better mileage in warm weather than cold, summer blend contains more BTU's/gal than winter blend ect. That is my expirience with it.


P.S. Watch your injectors REAL close for coking if you are running that truck on straight WVO. I sure hope for your sake that you're creating bio-diesel.

jojo,

Let me get this straight, you think that electrolysis is in some way new, innovative and at the same intellectual level as Einstein's theorys, atomic theory, and supercedes Faraday's laws? (cough cough) yeah right. How about you detail exactly in what way your miracle gas does this? I have and it doesn't, but why don't you use your hat holder and try to prove your points with LOGIC, FACTS and DATA rather than emotion, bad manors and insults. I know you won't as that is beyond a 13 year olds abilities.

You maybe don't realise that Faraday's laws are what was used more than a hundred years ago to DEFINE elements. Pick up a book and read it. I doubt you will be able to find a utube video to explain it to you, so visit the library and read some science FACT.

Oh, on the "Bee" thing, that's a myth that any scientist or engineer ever thought that they couldn't fly. It started from a mis-understanding or mistake by a reporter. Try to get your facts straight.

Amongst all of your talk about re-visits to determine why a bumble bee can fly and all of that whatnot, Jo Jo, I believe that you fail to realize that when the topic that you are discussing is re-visited time and time again, the outcome is the same every time. Change the equasion as much as you like, the outcome has been the same for every independant test that I have ever come across. And for those that do report an increase in mileage: they have always found it is caused by something different. "First thing this spring I'm gonna try one of those HHO generators and see how it does..." Of course failing to realize that diesel's average better mileage in warm weather than cold, summer blend contains more BTU's/gal than winter blend ect. That is my expirience with it.

Injecting HHO is just part of the equation. The other is ECM modifications that are now possible because of lower emissions made possible by HHO injection. These 2 modifications need to go hand in hand. Many times, people simply inject HHO without ECM modifications. This results in the discouraging 'independent' reports you are alluding to. If you simply add HHO without ECM modifications, then your results will not be as promising.


P.S. Watch your injectors REAL close for coking if you are running that truck on straight WVO. I sure hope for your sake that you're creating bio-diesel.

Yeah, the same old injector coking warning when running WVO. 'Experts' have been warning about this impending doom when running WVO. Why, because it seemingly violates many fundamental laws, like viscosity, atomization, etc. But my Injector Balance Rates actually improved after running WVO. This only tells me my injectors are cleaner. How many injectors fail because of inadequately filtered diesel? At least I know my WVO is filter to sub-micron levels.

Just like running HHO, I did some ECM modifications for safely running WVO. And I monitor and log my engine parameters everytime. I KNOW I am burning WVO safely.

jojo,

Let me get this straight, you think that electrolysis is in some way new, innovative and at the same intellectual level as Einstein's theorys, atomic theory, and supercedes Faraday's laws? (cough cough) yeah right. How about you detail exactly in what way your miracle gas does this? I have and it doesn't, but why don't you use your hat holder and try to prove your points with LOGIC, FACTS and DATA rather than emotion, bad manors and insults. I know you won't as that is beyond a 13 year olds abilities.

You maybe don't realise that Faraday's laws are what was used more than a hundred years ago to DEFINE elements. Pick up a book and read it. I doubt you will be able to find a utube video to explain it to you, so visit the library and read some science FACT.

Oh, on the "Bee" thing, that's a myth that any scientist or engineer ever thought that they couldn't fly. It started from a mis-understanding or mistake by a reporter. Try to get your facts straight.


WHATEVER !!!!

I am tired of discussing with someone who can't see beyond his own nose. Have a nice life!!!! Waste your money of Terrorist OIL.

Injecting HHO is just part of the equation. The other is ECM modifications that are now possible because of lower emissions made possible by HHO injection. These 2 modifications need to go hand in hand. Many times, people simply inject HHO without ECM modifications. This results in the discouraging 'independent' reports you are alluding to. If you simply add HHO without ECM modifications, then your results will not be as promising.



Yeah, the same old injector coking warning when running WVO. 'Experts' have been warning about this impending doom when running WVO. Why, because it seemingly violates many fundamental laws, like viscosity, atomization, etc. But my Injector Balance Rates actually improved after running WVO. This only tells me my injectors are cleaner. How many injectors fail because of inadequately filtered diesel? At least I know my WVO is filter to sub-micron levels.

Just like running HHO, I did some ECM modifications for safely running WVO. And I monitor and log my engine parameters everytime. I KNOW I am burning WVO safely.

Don't take this wrong, I am not picking on you, but this is exactly what I was talking about. When you are finished with your HHO system and ECM modifications, remove the HHO and leave the ECM modifications. My bet is the the mileage gain will remain, or possibly increase.

As far as the injector coking issue: its not based on theory, but rather expirience. I know of many many diesels that have fallen victim to it.

Now in all of this agument, I must tell you:Keep up your work. It is the people that keep expiramenting that usually find the thing that makes it all work. I'm just giving you my own knowledge and expirience. Good luck.

Don't take this wrong, I am not picking on you, but this is exactly what I was talking about. When you are finished with your HHO system and ECM modifications, remove the HHO and leave the ECM modifications. My bet is the the mileage gain will remain, or possibly increase.

I agree. We can currently modify our ECM calibrations to achieve instant 30% improvement. Why aren't we doing it? Emissions Regulations. For instance, running lean mixtures of gasoline increases MPG, but we can't do it because it will drive up NOx emissions. Stoichometric gasoline mixtures is hardly the best mixture to run. HHO injection will allow us to lean up our mixture while still falling below NOx emissions regulation levels.

HHO injection will allow us to configure 'more aggressive' ECM calibrations while still being able to comply with emissions regulations. This increases MPG.

This is part of the benefit that people are not understanding.

As far as the injector coking issue: its not based on theory, but rather expirience. I know of many many diesels that have fallen victim to it.


Yes, injector coking is possible for faulty conversions. Those who do not recalibrate their ECM for WVO injection run a higher risk of this happenning especially on common rail designs.

The most common argument by HHO naysayers why HHO injection could not possibly work is the 'Conservation of Energy' principle. We can not extract more energy than what we put in. Let me elaborate why this argument is faulty.

There is no doubt that this principle is absolutely true. However, how people apply it is faulty. The first thing to remember is that this principle holds only for a 'Closed' system. A system that is totally isolated from outside input or output of energy. There is no such system in the known Universe. A 'closed' system is a theoritical formulation that can never be achieved in this real world, unless you are referring to the Universe itself as being a closed system. A running car engine is NOT a closed system. It is receiving air from the outside. This is the reason why the Conservation of Energy principle can not be used to argue against the validity of HHO injection. It simply does not apply and people who have an incomplete understanding of this principle will be those who are the most ardent naysayer of the HHO injection benefits. They are simply not seeing the entire picture.

Another thing to remember is that our current engines are hardly a picture of efficiency. The Otto Thermodynamic cycle (for gas engines) and the Diesel Thermodynamic Cycle (for diesel engines) specifies the theoritical maximum amount of work that can be derived if one can build an ideal engine that conforms 100% to these thermodynamic cycles. Our engines do not come anywhere close to these theoritical cycles. If I remember correctly, an actual diesel engine is 40% efficient while a gas engine is 33% efficient. That is if we do not further 'dumb' down the engine for emission reasons. Our current engine configurations are truly inefficient machines made worse by emissions regulations. So, there is a lot of improvement that can be achieved by adding HHO making the engine more efficient while still being able to comply with emissions regulations.

HHO injection allows for more efficiency overcoming the energy that we have to use to electrolyze the HHO. This appears to violate the 'Conservation of Energy' principle, but upon more complete understanding of the the complex dynamics, IT DOES NOT.

Jeez Jojo,

I read your stuff and am more and more convinced you have a xxx xxxxx education. You really have no clue about how science works. Conservation of energy is just a "principle"? Maybe you can ask your mom or dad to take you to the library for some books, when you're done with your video games.

Guys! This is very good thread that is going to close if we cannot stop the insults. I think we all agree that you 2 disagree! I think you both agree that you disagree on the issue. Both of you have much more knowledge on this issue than I. Please, please, stop the insults and stick to the topic at hand! Or else, this is going to close!

Quoting the "bee thing" over and over shows most clearly who's spouting "pseudo science" in this debate. The "bee thing" has been out there since the 40's and is based upon a bee's ability to GLIDE not FLY. It is based solely upon the wing area vs. mass and drag for a STATIC bee. Real bees FLAP their wings and fly. dead bees with fixed wings glide like a brick and cannot "fly." Theoretical H2 injection allows super lean combustion and has been clearly demonstrated in confirmed and documented lab tests. Kitchen table electrolytic cells introducing minimal amounts of HHO into less than optimized lean burn conditions produces negilible results time after time after time after time - pseudo science preached by zealots with agendas or just plain stubborn ignorance. You said you don't have an agenda - so we don't need to argue.

Okay, I just can't stand it any longer and have to jump back in here. We have almost 15 pages of bickering back and forth, and have yet to see one scrap of scientific data supporting the use of HHO generators (and "my cousin's girlfriend's brother-in-law gets 100 mpg with his truck" does not count as scientific data-and neither do youtube videos). We can all argue the theoretical merits of these devices until we're blue in the face, but without any peer-reviewed data to support any of the theory, it's all mental masturbation.

Quoting the "bee thing" over and over shows most clearly who's spouting "pseudo science" in this debate. The "bee thing" has been out there since the 40's and is based upon a bee's ability to GLIDE not FLY. It is based solely upon the wing area vs. mass and drag for a STATIC bee. Real bees FLAP their wings and fly. dead bees with fixed wings glide like a brick and cannot "fly." Theoretical H2 injection allows super lean combustion and has been clearly demonstrated in confirmed and documented lab tests. Kitchen table electrolytic cells introducing minimal amounts of HHO into less than optimized lean burn conditions produces negilible results time after time after time after time - pseudo science preached by zealots with agendas or just plain stubborn ignorance. You said you don't have an agenda - so we don't need to argue.

Part of the bee story is a myth. The story about the dinner conversation about flight is the myth. But indeed, it is true that Aerodynamic laws says bees can not fly. This is supposedly due to their small wing size relative to body weight. This had nothing to do with gliding.

When you apply the equations to the wing size of a flapping wing, you end up with lift not sufficient to lift the bee. That is because scientists did not consider 'Turbulent' air flow. The bees wings flaps so fast that there is a lot of turbulence created. If you do not consider the lift created by turbulent air flow, your lift will not be sufficient. That is why they had to go back and modify the equations somewhat to account for turbulent air flow.

Okay, I just can't stand it any longer and have to jump back in here. We have almost 15 pages of bickering back and forth, and have yet to see one scrap of scientific data supporting the use of HHO generators (and "my cousin's girlfriend's brother-in-law gets 100 mpg with his truck" does not count as scientific data-and neither do youtube videos). We can all argue the theoretical merits of these devices until we're blue in the face, but without any peer-reviewed data to support any of the theory, it's all mental masturbation.

I've said this before, I'll say it again. There are results out there but may not be 'up to your standards'. You can accept them or reject them. But to expect people to go thru a more 'rigorous testing regime' for the benefit of a hostile audience like those in this thread, I DON"T THINK SO. Why should I expend extra time, money and resources to go thru a 'rigorous testing regime' to present it to an audience who will not give my study a fair shake?

The results I see are good enough for me. And research continues to improve it. But you won't expect me to share my results for the benefit of a hostile audience who have not been giving me a fair shake so far.

You could do it for the other thousands of members! I really don't know much about it, but I enjoy reading both of your theories and thoughts. :D All I ask is that we all continue to keep it civil. Please! This is a good thread. Thank you both, for all of your interesting posts! It is enlightening to say the least!

Part of the bee story is a myth. The story about the dinner conversation about flight is the myth. But indeed, it is true that Aerodynamic laws says bees can not fly. This is supposedly due to their small wing size relative to body weight. This had nothing to do with gliding.

When you apply the equations to the wing size of a flapping wing, you end up with lift not sufficient to lift the bee. That is because scientists did not consider 'Turbulent' air flow. The bees wings flaps so fast that there is a lot of turbulence created. If you do not consider the lift created by turbulent air flow, your lift will not be sufficient. That is why they had to go back and modify the equations somewhat to account for turbulent air flow.

Very close - but fixed wing gliding it is. It is also not just flapping - the wings are large enough to flap fast enough, but they DO gain an extra 35% in lift not because of "turbulence" but rotational flapping with leading edge vortices - still misquoting "pseudo science":

When science “proved” that insects can’t fly the only thing it really proved was that insects with smooth and rigid wings could not glide (Zetie, ’96). Experiments have actually been carried out demonstrating that this is indeed true. Clearly, conventional aerodynamics was not formulated to account for small insects with a small wing size. Once this was recognized, however, research began uncovering startling new aerodynamic oddities of insect flight that produce previously unknown sources of lift.

One of the most significant discoveries involves the rotation of the wings during flight. Michael Dickinson of the University of California discovered in his studies of flying insects that their brains were inordinately concerned with the minutiae of wing rotations. Hoping to reveal new insights into aerodynamic lift, Dickinson took a close look at wing rotations and noticed that it primarily occurred at the end of each wing stroke. To further analyze his findings he created a scaled-up version of a fruit fly’s wings. To simulate the viscosity of air from the fly’s point of view Dickinson placed his robotic wings in mineral oil and flapped them slowly. Using sensors attached to his robotic wing he determined that by precisely timing the rotation of its wing, bees could generate 35% extra lift. What Dickinson and other scientists have discovered is that precise wing rotations at the end of a stroke causes the vortices of air on the wings to increase their speed thereby increasing lift.
A similar discovery by Charles Ellington (mentioned above) attributes previously unknown sources of lift to a phenomenon called delayed stall. This occurs when a wing is at a high angle of attack (close to vertical) and the airstream detaches from the top of the wing forming a leading edge vortex. This vortex causes a low-pressure region on the wing temporarily increasing lift. Visualize a paper airplane near the end of its flight with the tail end dipping down and its nose pointing close to vertical. There is a brief moment of added lift just before it lands. This is delayed stall (Brookes, 1997) (Velasco, 1999) and it is normally a transitory phenomenon because it is so unstable. Ellington, like Dickinson, also created a larger than life mechanical apparatus (this one called Flapper) to better visualize the phenomenon. His results astonished him. During each stroke of his over-sized robo-bug’s wing, a leading edge vortex formed but instead of quickly dissipating, it traveled along the outer edge of the wing for most of the entire stroke of the wing. This was never noticed earlier primarily because the vortex is so tiny. It took something the size of Flapper to make it noticeable.

It seems clear that science has not proven that bumblebees cannot fly. This myth began after attempting to use the equations of aerodynamics, which beautifully describe the flight of manmade objects, to describe the flight of nature’s best aerialists, the insects. But when the differences between planes and bees are not accounted for it leaves one with the feeling that either science knows nothing or there is something magical about insect flight. Neither is true.

References:
1) K.P. Zetie; The Strange Case Of The Bumble Bee Which Flew. 1996. Winner of the Science in Print competition sponsored by the Institute of Phyics. http://www.iop.org/Physics/News/0012i.1
2) Brookes, Martin; On a Wing and a Vortex, New Scientist, 11 October 1997
3) Velasco, Juan; The Mystery of Insect Flight, New York Times, September 7, 1999, F5

I've said this before, I'll say it again. There are results out there but may not be 'up to your standards'. You can accept them or reject them. But to expect people to go thru a more 'rigorous testing regime' for the benefit of a hostile audience like those in this thread, I DON"T THINK SO. Why should I expend extra time, money and resources to go thru a 'rigorous testing regime' to present it to an audience who will not give my study a fair shake?

The results I see are good enough for me. And research continues to improve it. But you won't expect me to share my results for the benefit of a hostile audience who have not been giving me a fair shake so far.

I don't expect people to go through testing regimes; rather I expect the companies making thousands and thousands of dollars on these systems to submit their product for true, independent testing. There are literally hundreds of university researchers around the country that would take on this type of project and it wouldn't cost an arm and a leg. But heck, if you can scam people out of their money and don't have to prove anything, I guess I can't blame the companies for doing it.

Setting aside peer-reviewed research for a second, what any proponent of these systems could do is give us an excel table with say a few thousand miles worth of data before and after an HHO system installation. If you have the system anyway, this doesn't take any extra money and doesn't take much time. For that matter, send me the fuel receipts and mileage (or a copy of the fuel receipts) and I'll put together the table. Obviously this type of data can be manipulated, but if you include dates (which the fuel receipts almost always have), it makes it a lot easier to spot faked data.

Setting aside peer-reviewed research for a second, what any proponent of these systems could do is give us an excel table with say a few thousand miles worth of data before and after an HHO system installation. If you have the system anyway, this doesn't take any extra money and doesn't take much time. For that matter, send me the fuel receipts and mileage (or a copy of the fuel receipts) and I'll put together the table. Obviously this type of data can be manipulated, but if you include dates (which the fuel receipts almost always have), it makes it a lot easier to spot faked data.

Such a testing regime you propose will cost me money. You see, I do not meter the amount of WVO I put in. I have simply not found it worthwhile to meter WVO (since its free). If you are willing to pay $200 for a flow meter, then I can start metering my WVO.

To perform such a test as you propose, I will have to buy $4.50 diesel for a couple of thousand miles. Why would I do that when I am running free WVO? Why would I spend extra money? Are you willing to pay for that diesel. If so, I will perform the test you require.

I'll state it again here. My primary purpose for HHO injection is how it will clean up my WVO emissions. Now, I am convinced that it will also give me MPG gains. By how much? I don't exactly know. I am not willing to go thru the rigorous testing that would be satisfactory to you or to anyone in this forum.

BTW, just check out other's testimony in some forums. It may not be up to your standards of testing, but it's a start. And there are many many variations. Some gizmos are junk, some are good. Sometimes, gains are smaller for some cars. Sometimes they don't work. Everything is still a learning experience. Everybody is still experimenting. But there is no question, that with proper HHO injection, correct amount and some ECM modifications, gains can be achieved. But if you are looking for some specific combination of gizmos that would work a certain amount and give you a certain MPG gain in every situation, with every car, you are simply not going to get those levels of results. Not at this stage of R&D.

Maybe this is where the disagreement lies. You folks are looking for some well organized, well documented set of evidences. These simply do not exist yet.

What Dickinson and other scientists have discovered is that precise wing rotations at the end of a stroke causes the vortices of air on the wings to increase their speed thereby increasing lift.

Precisely what I said. Turbulent air flow.

Maybe I just did not take the time to fully explain what I meant.

Such a testing regime you propose will cost me money. You see, I do not meter the amount of WVO I put in. I have simply not found it worthwhile to meter WVO (since its free). If you are willing to pay $200 for a flow meter, then I can start metering my WVO...

Go to Walmart, buy a 30 dollar bathroom scale. Go on ebay or to any lab supply store and get a 2 liter volumetric flask. Weigh the oil you're putting into your car then see how much 2 liters of oil weighs. Do the math and you'll know the volume of oil you're putting in. It's really a simple process. I know weighing out the oil you're putting in your car might be a little bit of a pain, but if you use a 5 gallon carboy it works quite well. I put many thousand miles on my 87 SDL burning WVO, so I've been down this road before.

All you guys are the same-you make these wild claims and swear to their truth, but as soon as someone challenges you to provide proof of your wild claims, it all of a sudden becomes too difficult to do. You're not the first to exhibit this behavior and I'm sure you're not the last. But at the end of the day, the only proof you have, or are willing to obtain, is your feelings, gut instincts, or the claims of others.

All of us who dispute your claims have hundreds of years of physical and chemical laws on our side that say your claims are baseless. Prove us wrong or shut up.

All of us who dispute your claims have hundreds of years of physical and chemical laws on our side that say your claims are baseless. Prove us wrong or shut up.

Well, we'll just agree to disagree then. I really have no incentive to try to prove something to you. What would it benefit me if you believe me? Nothing? I am not running for political office to have to seek your approval. I see benefits, I believe I understand what's going on, let's just leave it at that.

All of us who dispute your claims have hundreds of years of physical and chemical laws on our side that say your claims are baseless. Prove us wrong or shut up.


BTW, would you like to guess what my engineering degree is? Electrical.

Would you like to know what I was doing when most of you folks are partying your way thru college? Running our Family's Ice Plant, Rice Mill and agricultural farm.

So, I would like to think that I know electricity, chemcal reactions and thermodynamic cycles. I definitely have a more complete understanding of those 'hundreds of years of physical and chemical laws' that you claim proves your point. Your selective, incomplete and inappropriate application of those laws are what gets you in trouble. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing, my friend. That's what got Marie Curie killed.

Guys, I'd give up if I were you. I have. You can't argue with an idiot, and it doesn't take long before you ALL look like idiots.

Guys, I'd give up if I were you. I have. You can't argue with an idiot, and it doesn't take long before you ALL look like idiots.

I know and you're entirely correct. I've tried my best to keep from getting drug back into this argument. I just can't stand it when people spout half-truths about something and make false claims they can't back up with any data. Then they expect it to be taken as the gospel truth. So when some unsuspecting person comes along and does an internet search, they come up with that drivel and spend their hard-earned money on something worthless. I guess anyone who comes up with this thread in a search is hopefully going to see through the BS claims and avoid that happening. If not, they deserve to lose their money...

I have a friend that is trying this on a hummer he has gone thru about 5 or 6 different home built systems the only thing he has proved is that they are very explosive the last one blew up not a good thing in my book.He is a retired sicence teacher he should know better.

HOW MUCH HYDROGEN GAS IS REQUIRED TO RUN A VEHICLE ON 100 PERCENT HYDROGEN?

ASSUMING THE FOLLOWING FUEL MILEAGE AT 60 MPH
DURING ONE HOUR OF TRAVEL:

A vehicle that gets 20 MPG requires 524 liters per minute *
A vehicle that gets 30 MPG requires 349 liters per minute *
A vehicle that gets 40 MPG requires 262 liters per minute *

* All the above figures are for uncompressed hydrogen gas

Here is the math to support my conclusions

ASSUMING THE FOLLOWING FUEL MILEAGE AT 60 MPH
DURING ONE HOUR OF TRAVEL:

A 40 MPG vehicle will use 1.5 gallons of gasoline
A 30 MPG vehicle will use 2.0 gallons of gasoline
A 20 MPG vehicle will use 3.0 gallons of gasoline

HOW MANY BTU WILL EACH OF THESE VEHICLES USE?

Currently, two thirds of the United States uses 10 percent ethanol and more mandates are on the way.

The BTU content of ethanol is 77,000 per gallon x .10 = 7,700
The BTU content of gasoline is 125,000 per gallon x .90 = 112,500

Therefore, most of us fill our vehicles with 120,200 BTU per gallon

Continuing the example at 60 miles per hour:

A 40 MPG vehicle will use 1.5 gallons x 120,200 BTU = 180,300 BTU
A 30 MPG vehicle will use 2.0 gallons x 120,200 BTU = 240,400 BTU
A 20 MPG vehicle will use 3.0 gallons x 120,200 BTU = 360,600 BTU

180,300 BTU divided by 60 minutes = 3,005 BTU per minute.
240,400 BTU divided by 60 minutes = 4,007 BTU per minute
360,600 BTU divided by 60 minutes = 6,010 BTU per minute


HOW MUCH HYDROGEN PER MINUTE DO WE NEED TO
SUPPLY THESE BTU REQUIREMENTS TO THE ENGINE?

Uncompressed hydrogen gas contains 325 BTU per cubic foot.

A cubic foot equals 28.32 liters.

325 BTU per cubic foot divided by 28.32 liters means that each liter of
uncompressed hydrogen gas contains 11.48 BTU.

3,005 BTU per minute divided by 11.48 BTU requires 262 liters per minute
4,007 BTU per minute divided by 11.48 BTU requires 349 liters per minute
6,010 BTU per minute divided by 11.48 BTU requires 524 liters per minute

If you wish to precisely figure out your vehicle requirement, here is an easy way, that revealed itself after the above math. Take 10,470 and divide it by
your mileage number, for example, 10,470 divided by 30 MPG equals 349 liters per minute of hydrogen requirement.


Now you can see that a few liters per minute is very small in comparison to the energy demands of an automobile. Even on a 40 MPG vehicle, two liters per minute is only .763 percent of the fuel requirement and .382 percent of the fuel requirement for a 20 MPG vehicle. At lower and higher speeds where mileage suffers, the percentages would be even lower.

Have you guys figured out whether the hho will work or not...1.5 liters per minute....who ever is selling that piece of crap should be brought up on theft charges. My ho-dink bench experiment put out more than that. Let me know if they work or not, and what your system consisted of. I've been "playing" with it for about 5 mos now, and finally come up with a combination that I decided to build for on vehicle testing....heck of a lot of work though....definately not increasing the efficiency of my shop:lol:

its works i have it on my truck

sharing any numbers? before and after

city/hwy before was 12/16 now 15/21
it also reduced my emissions from 3.5ppm to .08ppm so now i can get a tax credit for hybriding my truck
www.goinggreenertoday.com

duramaxdiesel224 thanx for the info, how long have you had this hho? wet or dry cell? I think those mileage will go up in the long run, I cant even get 21mpg with 265's especially with the ulsd fuel, its creating more heat and I think the API is around 40 on this fuel.

hey , yea I've had it since Nov 2008 its a wet cell

just got my 34 plates dry cell today, but couple clear plates are crack from shipping handling, planning to run 15-18amps according to manufacturer. still waiting for my amp meter to hook up to my pwm. still making couple scrubber coz I'm planning to use KOH for my catalyst, I heard its the best one. but I have to nuetralize it before it gets in my intake. does anyone know if LB7 has an air flow sensor?

What's KOH?
as far as the airflow sensor yes it has a MAFjust got my 34 plates dry cell today, but couple clear plates are crack from shipping handling, planning to run 15-18amps according to manufacturer. still waiting for my amp meter to hook up to my pwm. still making couple scrubber coz I'm planning to use KOH for my catalyst, I heard its the best one. but I have to nuetralize it before it gets in my intake. does anyone know if LB7 has an air flow sensor?

koh is potassium hydroxide, its corrosive. I heard its the same as lye product will eat up throttle body if not properly neutralize, it takes a while. did you hook up the hho before the maf sensor or after? what catalyst or electrolytes are you using? proper reservoir and hho flow is important as well, its not mostly the hho quantity, its the continues flow of hho in the intake, so all cylinders are distributed evenly, so by making the bubbles smaller or installing like torch tip at the end. just tips I read on line. anyone had experience on hho will appreciate the input for more dos & donts, just like me, would like to get the maximum performance on this project. that's why the mileage varies by wide margin, I think its in the installation. and some people are not sharing, come on now give it. I guess can't blame them, just look at what happen to Stan Myers.

oooooooooooh i have never heard of that abbreviation before, plus have heard nothing but problems with that, eats away you pistons :(... I would use distilled water and distilled vinegar if i was you. That's all i use plus its good for the environment. put it after the MAF about 5-6in from where the intake meet the turbo. I can not stress do not use potassium hydroxide!!!! . just use what i have said above you should be happy with the results plus your truck will love it :) make diesel smell go away ...
best up luck on your build !
Kanan

yea poor stan myers

of yea i also have a pump

check it out at www.fuelfromh2o.com
they make the best kits over 10,000 sold
plus been around over 10 years almost

you have a very cool dry cell, especially with a pump. I think its for water, right? how many amps are running? well I know the koh is corrosive that's why I'm going to use vinegar as a scrubber then water after my reservoir/bubbler. I think you'll have to use the catalyst/electrolyte your cell is design for. I just read about it on this link.
http://www.brownsgas.com/best_hho_electrolyte.html
kaliwa

Just thought I'd add in that I know someone that has met someone that has done it. :)

Haven't watched the video but I do use a home made hyd. gen. I get about 10% better mileage.

Just so you guys know I am thinking about testing the unit below which produces up to 25 liters a minute. I don't know what kind of results I will accomplish if any however I will datalog my results and attempt to give real numbers in as controlled an environment that I can. Me and my buddy have many ideas floating around on how to make it work well, however I would rather not get into a debate as it is a touchy subject on this and most forums.

I will keep you posted however it will be some time before I can get results due to my upcomming deployment to Iraq.

http://www.marchlabs.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=supernova

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65w-U-THIqg

what is there electrolyte ?Just so you guys know I am thinking about testing the unit below which produces up to 25 liters a minute. I don't know what kind of results I will accomplish if any however I will datalog my results and attempt to give real numbers in as controlled an environment that I can. Me and my buddy have many ideas floating around on how to make it work well, however I would rather not get into a debate as it is a touchy subject on this and most forums.

I will keep you posted however it will be some time before I can get results due to my upcomming deployment to Iraq.

http://www.marchlabs.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=supernova

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65w-U-THIqg

I think they use vinegar.

hmmmmmmmm and no koh?