Hho

[quadancer@bellsouth.net]

Just a note to the naysayers who are stuck in the mud. I've seen plenty of evidence as to the efficacy of gas savings so far, but it's only on this site that people are required to have logs to "prove" reality. So I built a modified Smack Booster...getting over 1l/min. and road tested my work yesterday, with NO electronics, NO oxygen sensor extender, just HHO into the intake, and gained 3mph on my first try, in my Silverado V-8. NOBODY can tell me it doesn't work, regardless of all the "math" formulas, laws of thermodynamics or personal grudges they post. BTW, the laws of thermodynamics should include ALL the existing factors, right? Then why not figure in THE INEFFICIENCY OF GAS along with your concept? That's what it's all about from what I've studied, not getting something for nothing.
Now if that wasn't enough, look at the new Honda car...RUNNING PURELY ON IT'S OWN HHO PRODUCTION...and get ready for the new wave baby, it's gonna be a mindblower. Leave it to the japanese to leave our american sloths in the dust. The Australians have a lot going on as well, and seem to have a new type of HHO power source that I find hard to believe myself. Burnable water, not gas. No, really, I mean the water can be LIT.

[GasSavers_Russ]

Originally Posted by quadancer@bellsouth.net

Just a note to the naysayers who are stuck in the mud. I've seen plenty of evidence as to the efficacy of gas savings so far, but it's only on this site that people are required to have logs to "prove" reality. So I built a modified Smack Booster...getting over 1l/min. and road tested my work yesterday, with NO electronics, NO oxygen sensor extender, just HHO into the intake, and gained 3mph on my first try, in my Silverado V-8. NOBODY can tell me it doesn't work, regardless of all the "math" formulas, laws of thermodynamics or personal grudges they post. BTW, the laws of thermodynamics should include ALL the existing factors, right? Then why not figure in THE INEFFICIENCY OF GAS along with your concept? That's what it's all about from what I've studied, not getting something for nothing.
Now if that wasn't enough, look at the new Honda car...RUNNING PURELY ON IT'S OWN HHO PRODUCTION...and get ready for the new wave baby, it's gonna be a mindblower. Leave it to the japanese to leave our american sloths in the dust. The Australians have a lot going on as well, and seem to have a new type of HHO power source that I find hard to believe myself. Burnable water, not gas. No, really, I mean the water can be LIT.

Good to hear your a believer, if you ever fancy a chat or chuck some ideas about drop us a email

Russ . . .

[dkjones96]

Originally Posted by quadancer@bellsouth.net

NOBODY can tell me it doesn't work, regardless of all the "math" formulas, laws of thermodynamics or personal grudges they post. BTW, the laws of thermodynamics should include ALL the existing factors, right? Then why not figure in THE INEFFICIENCY OF GAS along with your concept? That's what it's all about from what I've studied, not getting something for nothing.

You do realize that the ideal Hydrogen-Air mixture in an engine only burns at around 8 ft/sec right? Gasoline in open air burns at about 70 ft/sec and in an engine that goes as high as 170 ft/sec with compression. Gasoline burns more efficiently. And, saying you don't care about the fundamental laws of science doesn't help your case much. That just tells me that when you installed the HHO generator you probably drove differently.

A pound of H2 does have ~60,000 btu of latent energy while a pound of gasoline only has ~20,000 btu. BUT a pound of gasoline takes up 1/50th of a cubic foot of space while a pound of H2 gas(what we are working with here) takes up about 190 cubic feet of space. Also, a gallon of gasoline has 125,000 btu in it and a gallon of hydrogen has about 40.

I have no qualms with using hydrogen, it's a perfectly viable solution for alternative forms of energy acquisition. My only problem is when people like you come on here and say everyone that's trying to understand how this works is just talking it down for the sake of talking it down and should accept it as though you got the plans for it out of the bible or something. I have simply said that I don't understand how it could work and I would like for someone to actually use their brain for once and come up with an explanation.

These are my questions:
-How much gas in cubic feet per minute does the chamber make?
-What is the current draw on the 12v system to make that much gas?
-Is it the introduction of Hydrogen that's causing the increases or is it the introduction of Oxygen that is making the difference?
-Am I going to have to build my own unit to answer these questions?

[101mpg]

If HHO can actually work, there are dozens of people on this site willing to test it on their own rigs if someone can just show exact steps. As a moderator here, I have read nearly every message ever posted here, and we do take HHO seriously. If it's a viable alternative, and can extend fuel consumption well past the monetary and energy inputs required, then it would be a certain hit here.

Russ making comments like "my reactor blew up my kitchen" does not show that this is a viable alternative. In my high school physics class, the teacher separated water into hydrogen and oxygen with a battery, in some water with a little soap added, and we'd toss in matches and watch the explosions in the beaker. A beaker and battery is hardly a "reactor". It ended when it went a little too long and the flask blew up, spraying glass everywhere. There IS power in separated water, but we have yet to see valid, viable reproducible evidence that it's more economical to add separated water to the intake than the energy required to separate it.

Yes, this site has an undercurrent of "show me the proof", because this is a site for sharing ideas (and asking questions) about how to extend fuel economy.

If you have been able to produce effects like this, EVERYONE would be happy to see the results, and we'd like to take the opportunity to have some people scientifically reproduce those results.

There are a lot of people who want to sell snake oil, they are regularly chased from here.

So - if you've got reproducible results, you have a captive audience who would love to see them.

Similarly, we know it's possible for a vehicle to get 376 miles per gallon, there are vehicles in Europe that have exceeded 6000 MPG. Research 376milespergallon.com, the 1959 Opel with solid rubber tires that achieved this feat in 1973 with a heavily modified vehicle at 30 MPH. There are those who are experimenting with a constant-speed motor like the Chevy Volt, or diesel trains, that power a generator for battery charging. Using a modified engine like the 1959 Opel, theoretically it might be possible to have an electric vehicle powered by a constant-speed motor, getting in excess of 200 MPG for a real actual daily driver.

So - it really is okay that this site's members ask for proof, not poof.

[dkjones96]

Another question, since electrolysis is a result of current, not voltage, has anyone used a transformer to step the voltage down to like 1-2v and run a high amperage unit?

[GasSavers_BEEF]

power is power. if you use a step down transformer, then you will see the same amount of watts on both sides of the transformer so you won't really see any electrical benefits from it other than running one cell vs many cells like some people are running.

and if you put DC into a transformer, it tends to melt. you have to pulse DC to run it through a transformer. I guess in a theoretical sense you could use a DC to DC converter but now you have more losses from that.

and not to start any more mess but....still waiting for a gas log

[R.I.D.E.]

Counterpoint:

I contacted two people who were trying to sell the HHO generators here in eastern Virginia.

Remember these are people who are trying to commercialize HHO generators, so I think you could assume they would be positive about their product.

I asked them why not 100% HHO, you know the "Run Your Car on Water" claim. Humm sorry it wont work.

They were focusing on larger diesel vehicles and made some claims that were in the range of 20% improvements in mileage, but these are vehicles that also spend a lot of time idling unnecessarily.

They also told me that Virginia had passed laws that required them to certify their systems as emissions compliant, on all emissions regulated vehicles, which explains their focus on non emissions regulated vehicles.

The mass of the fuel you are creating at 1 gallon per minute HHO generation, is less that 1/10th of 1% the mass of fuel you need to run my (58.81 MPG)car.

Enhanced combustion characteristics are the ONLY logical reason any HHO system would work, because the generation of HHO cost several times the power in to get the fuel out. Obviously the ONLY claim that could even come close to legitimate would be enhanced combustion.

I like proof and I accept proof as a fact when I know the testing was done by a disinterested party who has no possible financial interest that would predetermine the result.

Its soo easy to prove.

Dyno a car stock same load and speed, verify fuel consumption.

Dyno the same car with HHO without using the vehicles charging system to generate the HHO.

Dyno the same car with the system hooked up to the vehicles charging system.

First test is your basis with no possible variables, like how the car is driven.

Second test is your ideal increase in efficiency with no added power required from your alternator.

Third test is your real world HHO setup in the car using the charging system to generate your HHO.

Game-set-match

Done by an independent lab with a reputation for credibility.

Now even if you do succeed in proving without any doubt that the system is proven to be beneficial, now you only have to figure out how to make it hands off and maintenance free, for 50,000 miles as required by federal emissions regulations, to avoid the $2500 fine as a violator.

Put up or shut up.

regards
gary

[GasSavers_BEEF]

gary, I like you. you always have good information to share.

I am glad that I am not the only one that wants to see proof of the better mileage. the dyno would be ideal but I would be happy with a gas log that continues to grow over months of study. my gas log is almost 3 months old now so If I claim something great has happened, people can watch my progress or watch me fall on my face (usually the latter of the two) but that is how you progress with anything.

[quadancer@bellsouth.net]

Heck, I agree with all of you, actually. But as for understanding this thing, the only word that comes to mind from science classes MANNNNY years ago, is "catalyst", which I believe was a substance that causes reactions in other substances or something like that. Since results on HHO are very different from car to car, driver to driver, there seems to be some very variable science involved that won't compute mathematically. ('cause it's magic, right?)
R.I.D.E. has a great testing concept and I've wondered why no one here has tried that out, preferably using the additional electronics I keep hearing you'll need. I'm not stupid enough (or vain) to featherpedal around on a test when I don't every day. I got better mileage out of 3 traffic jams than I do on the road trips, for one run. BUT...I keep seeing some discussion coming up about idling, and I was doing a lot of that; stands to reason that the fuel/HHO mix is a higher ratio at idle and there could be the fluctuation. HOWEVER. I don't have enough toes to count the anecdotes of people trying this stuff out and either succeeding or failing until improvements were made.
I guess I get a little miffed when it seems like VERY smart people come up with a lot of math to explain away something in the face of something that works- wether we can explain it or not.
To answer DK:
These are my questions:
-

How much gas in cubic feet per minute does the chamber make?

I dunno, 1.21L/min. - aha, found the formula: .04 cu. ft./min.

-What is the current draw on the 12v system to make that much gas?

A whopping and unacceptable 28 amps

-Is it the introduction of Hydrogen that's causing the increases or is it the introduction of Oxygen that is making the difference?

mmm...dunno, but if it works...

-Am I going to have to build my own unit to answer these questions?

to satisfy yourself, yes, if you don't sabotage it. Not that you would, but some of the mooks out there...
Oh, one last thing: I DID see a report done by some people with a van that dyno tested it with and without the HHO on and gained 16% with no electronics. I can find it.

[GasSavers_BEEF]

if I did something to my car and it did wonderously, I for my own knowledge would want to know how it works just for my own understanding.

I am a firm believer in knowledge is power so if you don't understand something (whatever it is) then learn. if you don't understand how it works then how can you repeat it or better yet perfect it?

you keep talking about the inefficiencies of the ICE (internal combustion engine) which is not in question but that inefficient engine is the power source for your hydrogen generator making it less efficient at the power source.

I am not arguing that you can make hydrogen or that you can run a car on hydrogen.... well my arguements don't seem to make a difference anymore, people are still going to claim that they are doubling their mileage and the moderators will keep taking the threads off of here so I am not sure what else to say.