Hey has anyone heard anything good or bad about putting a HHO (hydrogen, hydrogen, oxygen) system on their diesel engine? Sounds very interesting, is it too good to be true?

Cough cough {bullsnit} cough cough {ripoff!} cough cough

jb

I did some research on this today and from what info I could gather it looked like it could be possible but like everything you just have to try it to see I guess. I heard about making my own Bio Diesel about a year ago and everyone said it is BS but I know have a Full BioD station setup in my garage and make it for $1 a gal!! Using Veggie oil and the Appleseed setup. I runs great and I feel like the man everytime I start up b/c I know I am not getting screwed on fuel prices. Only problem was had to replace fuel filter once early on but now its fine. I am gonna keep digging on the HHO. Seems to easy but so did making my own fuel.... and it worked

there is actually premise to this but i think it needs a bit more work....hydrogen is definatley going to be a future fuel source but does it work?....it seems like it does the websites selling the manuals have numerous news stories that have been on in the us and the uk with several differentg inventors that have done the same thing, make a car run on water. in all reality the car is not running on water...it is running on hydrogen gas and gasilone mized together. the hydrogen is separated from the water with electricity and then is sent in to the combustion chamber with a smaller amount of gasoline... its pretty cool and technologically available solution to the current fuel prices......no i am not selling it and i probably wont put one on my truck but it may be a viable source of alternative fuels...beside...it probably wont work on diesels....

It is bs!


Check out this link.

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

Moved to Alternative Fuels! ;)

Splitting water to make hydrogen and oxygen for use as a fuel has been discussed ad nauseum on here. Do a search for the details, but in a nutshell, it's junk science. You have to put more energy into the system to split the water than you get out from putting the water back together. The only way something like this has a shot is if you're using "free" energy (i.e. wind, solar, etc.) to split the water. In essence you're just using it as a complicated battery.

I down loaded some of the proponents propaganda -- er -- literature and read the technical discussion.

They are claiming that the energy gain is due to tapping into Zero Point Energy. It was hard to read as the smoke was by that time billowing out my rectum from them blowing it up my ass, so I may have gotten some details wrong. Eyes were watering pretty bad... They also claim 6x to 60x greater energy from burning hho (or was it ho-ho-ho, no! that's Santa. HIM I believe in) than the heat of combustion produces.

I won't call it junk science as that is too insulting to junk.

jb

Junk? LOL. I have a 2007 GMC Sierra with the Dmax. I have been researching HHO for only a few weeks when I decided to get a system. Let me tell you it was the best thing I ever did. Before I was getting 27mpg on highway 65mph. Now I am getting 42mpg. I know seems like BS. I'm telling you it's not. It's a gas that is much more powerful than diesel and gasoline. What is so far fetched that a gas makes this power and increase in mileage? Nitrous is a gas and it makes tremendous power when added. So why can't HHO increase the performance? From what I have researched, HHO gives better performance out of diesels than it does gas engines. I would try it if I were you. I got mine from ebay for $200 and is by far the best mod I have got for it. Better than the tuner, exhaust, intake combined. I am curious to see what kind of hp gains it gives. It definitely is quieter has smoother shifts, and better acceleration. I recommend to all to try it. Took me 15 min to install.

6-10 amps is hardly any extra energy that is a big concern for wasting juice from your batteries. Even if that concerned you, you could get a 150 amp alternator. Im saving literally hundreds of dollars a month since I put about 200 miles a day on my truck.

You've got to be kidding me. Why not just do water injection and let the heat in the engine split it for ya and get lower egts. There is just not enough energy in the hydrogen in a quart jar to do diddly for your 7000lb truck. One molecule of water has one oxygen atom and 2 hydrogen atoms. Break it down into 1/3 oxygen and 2/3 hydrogen. You get the 2/3 of a quart jar of hydrogen. This stuff burns but it is not some wonder gas. These kits run off of a quart jar which probably take a week to use. How much could it be contributing to the combustion process?

Junk? LOL. I have a 2007 GMC Sierra with the Dmax. I have been researching HHO for only a few weeks when I decided to get a system. Let me tell you it was the best thing I ever did. Before I was getting 27mpg on highway 65mph. Now I am getting 42mpg. I know seems like BS. I'm telling you it's not. It's a gas that is much more powerful than diesel and gasoline. What is so far fetched that a gas makes this power and increase in mileage? Nitrous is a gas and it makes tremendous power when added. So why can't HHO increase the performance? From what I have researched, HHO gives better performance out of diesels than it does gas engines. I would try it if I were you. I got mine from ebay for $200 and is by far the best mod I have got for it. Better than the tuner, exhaust, intake combined. I am curious to see what kind of hp gains it gives. It definitely is quieter has smoother shifts, and better acceleration. I recommend to all to try it. Took me 15 min to install.

There is NO D max that gets 27mpg to begin with, so got any other stories I love this cheap entertainment.

:thankyou2:agreed::exactly:

I am curious about your installation. Did you follow the path of installing an electronic fuel enhancer to "fool" the computer on O2? I just acquired a Silverado 2007 3500 dually with a Duramax and am considering an installation.

Well A buddy put one on his f350 diesel and he went from 12 to 18 mpg right off the bat. We all told him he was crazy and it wouldn't work, but he swears by it and ordered kits for all his other trucks. He says it has more power too. I am thinking of making one for my 8.1 gasser. I know this guy personnally.

I did some research on this today and from what info I could gather it looked like it could be possible but like everything you just have to try it to see I guess. I heard about making my own Bio Diesel about a year ago and everyone said it is BS but I know have a Full BioD station setup in my garage and make it for $1 a gal!! Using Veggie oil and the Appleseed setup. I runs great and I feel like the man everytime I start up b/c I know I am not getting screwed on fuel prices. Only problem was had to replace fuel filter once early on but now its fine. I am gonna keep digging on the HHO. Seems to easy but so did making my own fuel.... and it worked

Hey Joe,

If you're using the Appleseed, let me give you some advice on how to further cut your fuel cost (mine is about $0.60/gallon).

I presume you built your Appleseed from a water heater (much as I did). I salvaged another 40gallon heater, rigged it up much like the Appleseed but put a condensing coil (plumber's friend) on it to condense methanol vapors. I heat the glycerin to 150* and can condense and reclaim about a gallon per hour. In essence, I run a distillery to reclaim some of the methanol I've used.

For a 20 gallon batch using 20% methanol, I can reclaim 1 1/2 gallons of 94% pure methanol from the 4 1/2 gallons of glycerin. At $3.45/gallon for methanol and $3.10/lb for NaOH, that puts my 19-20 gallon yield somewhere between $0.58 and 0.61/gallon.

There is NO D max that gets 27mpg to begin with, so got any other stories I love this cheap entertainment.


There was a guy in the Diesel Power Mag that got more than that with CNG! ;)

there is actually premise to this but i think it needs a bit more work....hydrogen is definatley going to be a future fuel source but does it work?....it seems like it does the websites selling the manuals have numerous news stories that have been on in the us and the uk with several differentg inventors that have done the same thing, make a car run on water. in all reality the car is not running on water...it is running on hydrogen gas and gasilone mized together. the hydrogen is separated from the water with electricity and then is sent in to the combustion chamber with a smaller amount of gasoline... its pretty cool and technologically available solution to the current fuel prices......no i am not selling it and i probably wont put one on my truck but it may be a viable source of alternative fuels...beside...it probably wont work on diesels....
Hydrogen to gasilone? Why not an alternative of capping methane, they're doing that in the phillipines or one of those islands? The source is a pig farm, it's open air and they still get plenty of methane buildup, unlike those shown on PETA videos. I actually suggested capping the methane from sewage plants also. Opposed to upping the nuke industries, globally. "A"tomic and particle energies are not really all that assured. Three mile island, cHernobyl? Think about it methane production is occuring whether we cap it or not and according to these "A"cademics, it is affecting the ozone layer. They forget to mention NASA though. Nasa has done nothing with the other space programs to the ozone layer along with the satellite systems, hmmm...I kept thinking OnStar was satellite (silly me) they have to be on towers. NASA by the way uses oil to this day, which usually brings me back to what good are they? Actually what do they do? They use up oil and gas reserves annually. They put this and that into space and what do they do with it? Did they check out the chemical attributes of the reported chemical lakes overseas that look like water, yet exude a chemical fog that kills villages?

I was watching the military use of gasilone today on this program on cable. I am actually surprised at this point that with all the Nuclear plants globally along with the particle laboratories world wide, etc...that the planet has not blown up just yet or large chunks of it. Particles are something of a sore point, they are used based on theoretical physics. Theory to reality, does not guarantee containment of any types of particles. Take FERMILAB AND CERN for examples.......

Hydrogen to gasilone? Why not an alternative of capping methane, they're doing that in the phillipines or one of those islands? The source is a pig farm, it's open air and they still get plenty of methane buildup, unlike those shown on PETA videos. I actually suggested capping the methane from sewage plants also. Opposed to upping the nuke industries, globally. "A"tomic and particle energies are not really all that assured. Three mile island, cHernobyl? Think about it methane production is occuring whether we cap it or not and according to these "A"cademics, it is affecting the ozone layer. They forget to mention NASA though. Nasa has done nothing with the other space programs to the ozone layer along with the satellite systems, hmmm...I kept thinking OnStar was satellite (silly me) they have to be on towers. NASA by the way uses oil to this day, which usually brings me back to what good are they? Actually what do they do? They use up oil and gas reserves annually. They put this and that into space and what do they do with it? Did they check out the chemical attributes of the reported chemical lakes overseas that look like water, yet exude a chemical fog that kills villages?

I was watching the military use of gasilone today on this program on cable. I am actually surprised at this point that with all the Nuclear plants globally along with the particle laboratories world wide, etc...that the planet has not blown up just yet or large chunks of it. Particles are something of a sore point, they are used based on theoretical physics. Theory to reality, does not guarantee containment of any types of particles. Take FERMILAB AND CERN for examples.......


Did any of you people actually pass your science classes?

Good lord, please get someone to read a book to you.

jb

There is NO D max that gets 27mpg to begin with, so got any other stories I love this cheap entertainment.


Hallaleuya!!

it works i have a magdrive hho generator on my truck

224 which magdrive did you go with

4 brick now...

Hey has anyone heard anything good or bad about putting a HHO (hydrogen, hydrogen, oxygen) system on their diesel engine? Sounds very interesting, is it too good to be true?

OK - this question was sent to me by a friend - I'm new to this forum and just registered - I have a 8 y.o. Mazda Fighter 2.5 turbo diesel - it has always (from new) been dealer serviced and maintained - I'm based in Chiangmai, northern Thailand. The original post above is dated in 2008 so this (my)contribution may be redundant but here goes anyway .....

My answer to the posted question is based on my personal experiences with fitting HHO to my truck over the last 9 months.

It's ALL been GOOD !!! I fitted a HHO unit in Thailand designed and made by American/Dutch partners known as the A & N Thaihydrogen unit. They helped instal it and made it operable. It worked fine from the 'get-go' before I took it on the road ! I paid for it on the understanding it would improve my vehicle's fuel consumption - it DID - in spades (see below !) - I agreed to allow them access to my vehicle and the A & N unit for checking and maintenance - fair enough I think !

Here's the 'how and why' ....

1. Immediately noticeable was the smoother idle and lower vibration (almost nil now !). I have a towbar (hitch) which rattled loudly on idle - now it's silent - at first, I thought somebody stole it !
2. The engine ran sweeter, quieter, with less vibration.
3. Driving it on-road, the lack of turbo lag was immediately noticeable.
4. Other smaller improvements were noted - less engine noise, smoother running, better idle at lights/stops.
5. There was no difference (no loss) in power.
6. But the main feature/improvement was not noticed until needing to fuel the tank the first time - then it was clearly obvious that there was a significant & huge FUEL SAVING (I had noticed it seemed to be going a lot further before needing filling). At first calculation, I could NOT believe my figureing - but subsequent and frequent checking proved my numbers were correct. Even the makers A & N could not - and would not believe ! I was getting a 65% improvement in fuel consumption. In other words, I was able to travel 3 times (yes - three times !) further than before ... for the same amount of fuel - that's a BIG saving at the pump ! At first, my Lady dismissed the claims of A & N - "Run on water ?! Impossible!" - but now she finds there's much more money in her purse for personal shopping, she too is convinced about the cash saving. And is now one of A & N's regular & committed cheerleaders.
7. Then came the doubters, the unbelievers, the naysayers ...... some are on this and other forums about HHO, to the extent I notice that one other forum (no names no packdrill !) has a "ban" on posts - and posters - about HHO !!! That seems unconstitutional ! So you won't find my name on that forum because I and my attempt at posting would be banned !
8. So, are there any drawbacks, downsides, disadvantages to this A&N unit ? NO, NONE, NOT YET - not that I can find ! The naysayers state that it's 'IMPOSSIBLE" to get energy for nothing. Agreed ! I'm an engineer by training and I do NOT DISagree with Sir Isaac Newton ! No way. So I agree with those naysayers and disbelievers that the vehicle cannot derive any significant amount of extra (or 'new') energy from hooking up to the battery/alternator on the vehicle's engine to a hydrogen cell unit. There just isn't enough energy in that route. I agree ! That was agreed and settled long ago. And I agree with a certain 'self proclaimed' "Professor" Johnson (of Chicago University) on another forum - the now banned forum - who posted endless screeds of quotations from erudite books and references using long words - and worse - long complicated and involved formulae. His head is deeply embedded in his books - I wonder if he has ever put a finger on an engine ? (Sorry, Mr Johnson, about the use of the 'Professor' - you did not actually claim to be a 'professor' - bu5t you do come across sunding like one ....) All his posts support his beliefs that HHO cannot work - except under laboratory conditions - it's all baloney, a scam, doesn't work, it can't work ! I did not - and could not - decipher all those formulae simply because those fancy symbols did not come out clearly on my screen. And anyway, I'm a hands-on engineer - time served and certificated in training on diesel engines decades ago. After 'hitting the books' on a new device, I prefer to fit it - check it out - and witness the results for myself - rather than use books and references to "prove" a point. (I agree - I probably would not understand all those formulae he offered even if I could read them clearly on my screen !). A simple 'Yes' or 'No' would suffice - does it work or not ? To my knowledge, ALL those naysayers have never actually physically tried a HHO unit to see whether it works or not ? Why is that, I wonder ?
9.Another question of the disbelievers is - "Does it do any harm to the engine ? Will anything break using HHO ?" Fair question which NOT many posts touch upon. But I will state, from my present testing to date and substantial past experience with diesel engines - my answer is a clear "NO" ! I do not witness any deterioration due to wear, no loss of performance, no piston slap, little or big end tap or knock, no 'smoking gun' at the exhaust, no overheating, no adverse 'clatter' or noises, clunks, bangs, rattles, that cannot be explained simply and conclusively as "normal". No evidence of any symptoms that are typical of an engine malfunction. Nothing ! Everything is working fine. For 9 months ! And about 5000 kilometres. The vehicel just uses less fuel to get there - to do it's job. Who can complain about that ?
10. I do try - from time to time - to question my "ALL-GOOD" results - have I missed something ? Then what is it ? If the result is not due to 'extra energy' from the battery/alternator (don't we all agree it's not that ?!) - AND - the hydrogen unit itself does not push out enough HHO energy to account for the improvement - then why am I getting this remarkable fuel saving ? Why are the results SO GOOD ? Here are my thoughts - not proof - not theory - not formulae - not textbooks - just my thoughts - OK ? Someone once said 'if you eliminate everything else, then what you're left with must be the answer'. Sounds a bit trite - but maybe there's something there worth looking at in more detail. AND - as far as I know - there has NOT been any work done and published about improving the efficiency of ic engines. And that was also confirmed by that 'professor of Chicago U' - he touched upon it - but did not choose to pursue it. I wonder why ?
12. My 'thoughts' as I call them are based on 'improving the fuel combustion efficiency' of the ic engine. 'The professor' touched on it - just touched - but did not follow through in any detail - as I said above -perhaps because there is nothing published for him to refer back on - or not much anyway; and also possibly because it's not productive to 'push' an idea if it's contrary to your paymasters' interests !??! (This is purely speculative - and not a definitive allegation - just a thought. There has been a lot of 'talk' about BIG OIL and it's negative influence on certain developments. Perhaps there IS no work being done on improving an engine's fuel efficiency - could it be simply because it's against the interests of BIG OIL ???!!! The more fuel we all consume the better it is for the oil companies. I re-emphasise here that these are my thoughts - I'm not willing to fight BIG OIL !
13. So just what are these thoughts of mine ? Up to now, all the naysayers and disbelievers claim that the hydrogen cell - by itself - CANNOT achieve these good results. I agree. But my thoughts are simply this - why just look at the unit alone and question or doubt the hydrogen cell itself ? Instead, why NOT consider it as only a part of the vehicle's entire propulsion system. It's just another 'part' of the engine/power system. The overall system of cell + the engine - and it's combustion process therein should be considered. Maybe (and here's the thought to hold onto), the introduction of HHO - even in small amounts (and therefore low in energy potential) - into the cylinder ie the combustion process - causes an improvement in the overall function of the engine - the efficiency of the engine. I repeat "The efficiency of the engine combustion". (The 'professor' mentions "21%" - I have read of fuel efficiencies as high as 30+% for well designed and maintained engines). But even 31% is low - a poor figure - the electric motor (another 'engine') is much, much more efficient. If that could be the case, ie HHO improves combustion efficiency, then more work needs to be done by universities and indepedent testing laboratories - by the "professors" of this world - to prove - or disprove - the efficacy, usefulness or "desired effect" - of HHO systems. Has this already been done ? Not to my knowledge - or that of the Chicgo U expert, Mr Johnson - not in all that screed of info he put out - and he puts his head into - but he does allude to improving "combustion efficiency" as one possible route to follow up - and the need for definitive testing to be done in this area. That's the first time I've read of - or heard of - someone advocating checking whether HHO has a benficial effect on combustion - and hence fuel economy ???!!!!! I agree - it should be done. But who pays for this ? Government ?!
14. So, does HHO really work ? Because - put simply - it DOES work -but DOES it do that by improving combustion efficiency - and therefore saves money on fuel ? And no one has disproved it yet by actual testing. I suspect that some have tried - and failed - to disprove the claims for HHO and fuel saving - (maybe even BIG OIL has sponsored such tests) - but their efforts have foundered for lack of any conclusive and supporting facts to the contrary. HHO - IT JUST DOES WORK ! And NOT just in laboratories ! So therefore, more work is needed on this aspect -to prove - or otherwise - the undoubted benefits of HHO on vehicle ic engines. Why DOES it work ? Meantime, the naysyaers out there should just stay quiet !!!!
15. AND - if it's NOT combustion efficieny improvement - then what is it ? What is IT that makes HHO work SO well ??? Remember - you heard it asked here first !
16. Along with the unargueable benefit of fuel saving which HHO brings to a lot of committed HHO drivers, let us not forget too that there are other highly desirable benefits - CLEAN GREEN BURN, lower pollution (we do still use some hyrocarbon fuel in our vehicles so it's not 100% clean, safety from a hydrogen-on-demand system ie NO pressure storage tanks and safe water and minimal non-toxic kitchen (food) ingredients like vinegar and bakong soda - but much, more so than using straight diesel and petrol/gasoline), lower maintenance costs due to the cleaner burn ...... and finally (for now anyway !) - the liquid mix is intrinsically safe (additives recommended by A&N Thaihydrogen) amount to less than 1 % by volume of commonly available household (kitchen) items. Forget about that old saw of the Hindenberg disaster newsreel - that's "old hat" - there's likely more danger in a Zippo-type lighter in the hands of a terrorist than a Thaihydrogen A&N HHO unit fitted in a vehicle !
17. And finally - yes, finally - GO - GO - HHO !!!

Thanks.

MalcolmL

PS Disclaimer - I have no financial (or otherwise) affliliation to Thaihydrogen or any other HHO commercial concern. I AM a friend of the partners of A & N - Thaihydrogen - friends only - they help me, I help them. Yes, the "friend" mentioned in my opening sentence of this post which has turned out to be much longer than I expected - is one of the partners. Sorry about being so windy - but I hope the ride was worth it ! ML

PPS As a result of the GOOD performance of my A & N unit on my diesel truck - I decided to have one fitted to my 1957 Opel (Buick) Olympia Sedan. It performs fine - but it's early days as yet - I'm not ready to publish any consumption figures - but I can say, "It's looking good !" ML

lol 6 now :) check it out www.goinggreenertoday.com (http://www.goinggreenertoday.com)4 brick now...