The coal (and it's relative, the wood) gas generator...there's an interesting fuel source...shows up in Mother Earth News magazine from time to time...only wish it didn't take up so much room (of course, living as I do in the desert, it wouldn't do me much good...)

quadancer,

are you starting to see my point? all of these companies and all of these people are talking about doubling your mileage but when it comes to hard evidence, they have none or maybe a comparison with a half mile run. I can make my car get 22MPG in a half mile and then turn around and hypermile that half mile and get low to mid 40s. that is their trick, that is how they suck people in.

Is it possible to make hydrogen and oxygen out of water? yes it's chemistry at its best. can you do it efficiently enough to show a gain in your car? I guess time will tell. I doubt very seriously that if someone got gains from it that they will "DOUBLE" your gas mileage.

still waiting for the infamous gas log

That's a reasonable position for the most part. But, one always has to keep in mind that the masses are not always right. It's akin to stating that "I'll believe that the sun is the center of the solar system when I see astrologers changing their maps to reflect that viewpoint, they have a vested interest in astronomical accuracy after all".

But still, yeah, when money is a motivator you'd think that something more economical would catch on pretty quick.

That said, why aren't most UPS fleet vehicle drivers being instructed on employing the "safer" hypermiling techniques, which clearly work for enchancing mpg by a good margin? They clearly drive their trucks like they drive their cars, which is like everybody else, which is inefficiently as possible.

Meh, just taking both sides of the conversation and rolling them around in my brain a bit, lol. :)

UPS drivers cannot drive their trucks for FE. If they did, you'd get your package in 6 days instead of 3. Having a friend who drives, he's had to quit at 9pm (starts at 7am) because that's the limit UPS allows. Delivering 300 packages to 280 destinations in 10 hours is no small feat.

They can take minor steps, like not mashing the accelerator like they were in a car race, or traveling the PSL at all times. Nothing earth shattering, yet I see no educational attempts (maybe there are some, and they by and large ignore them, who knows?).

I'm not for or against HHO, I know nothing about it really, it's just the 'if it were a good idea everybody would be doing it' argument tends to put too much faith in human rationality and reason. Unfortunately that kind of faith rarely pays off when you examine humans closer than surface level. The moment you deal with more than one human being you enter a world where reason gets thrown out the door at the slightest disagreement or opinion. Wish it weren't so.

IMO there's the same problem with some of these efficiency devices as there are with "herbal cures"... some of them may work very well, some may not, but because they are to some extent public domain, no company can invest the time and money in testing and certification, when any other company can come along and undercut them with no recourse through the patent and/or copyright system. Ergo only fresh, new ideas are likely to make it into cars and aftermarket products, because they have patentable and protectable aspects.

When us grunts have done all the legwork, and accumulated enough data, empirical and otherwise, about particular devices and methods, such that implementation in a product would cost a negligible amount, because all the performance criteria have been hashed out and all that's needed is to write a spec, plug the right numbers in, and have the design jump right out.... then this sort of stuff might start appearing in commercial products. This would be because there would be no large risk or outlay involved at that point that would disadvantage you WRT to a competitor.

Even though HHO might seem like a really neat trick, there are still HUGE problems to solve as regards practicality for the non-experimenter, non-handyman, non-thinking member of the general populace.

Amen. Joe dropwrench could have a lawsuit on you in a New York minnit when he knocks off a tube and his cigarette fries his face or something. Another problem I see is that my V-8 will probably require a dual-edge MAP sensor enhancer, but my wife can't be depended on to do more than what she allready knows. Go and stop. So these things will have to be idiotproofed, safety-factored, cost-effective, and mileage proven in respect to engine damage. As you said, WE take the initial risks, do the experimentation, legwork, and cash outlay.
Say I own a fleet of trucks. Do I really want to risk my engines and possible replacements on an unproven, untested (on a large scale), uncertain product that produces explosive gases and puts them over my engines in little vinyl tubes? The average corporate owner would sneer in derision at this IMO.
I should start collecting the posts and videos I've seen where guys are claiming success with these. There are actually quite a few out there, and I'll be the first to say that some of these guys are high-siding their claims. As I said, I can't see how every one of these guys are lying. They'd have more to gain by telling the truth and getting help with their units. Of course, don't believe anyone who is selling them; they may lie.

R.I.D.E. -

I don't think it was called Brown's Gas in WWII. I *appears* that the first "engine application" happened in 1935 :

Browns Gas / HHO History
https://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashistory.html
Attachment 1303

Sooooooo, I don't think the U-Boat analogy is a good one.

PS - Oh yeah, the Comet's P-Stoff and C-Stoff, a deadly combination :

Rocket Fuels - Liquid Fuels used in the 109-509 Series Motors
https://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/design/fuels.htm


CarloSW2

Hi
New guy here. Interesting discussion. I used to follow the yahoo water car and hydroxy boards. I haven't been reading them in a while, but it seems like back a year or so ago the consensus was that hydroxy could supplement an ICE only with some modification. If I remember right there is an adjustable sensor or a workaround to the increase of fuel. Another development that was being studied was the use of water and h202 along with hydroxy. The hydroxy was generated and was bubbled into a mixture of distilled water and H202. That mixture acted as a storage vehicle for the hydroxy. The mixture was placed into a jar that was teed to the pcv line. Under throttle the hydroxy vapor was sucked into the intake and combusted. No engine modification was needed. Now some folks were claiming an increase in millage, others none. Not sure if the testing proved anything solid. Water injection has been a round for years and some claims of increased millage may be attributed to the cleaning of the water. Older vehicles often increase in mpg if the intake and combustion surfaces are cleaned of carbon.

Of course you have the total hydrogen car built by Stan Meyers, the research by Bob Boyce and Daniel Dingle. They are at one time or another purported to have produced a car/ice that ran on 100% electrolysis produced hydroxy. The Stan Meyers set up is what is being researched the most.

I recently was told about the product linked below. I believe it works along the same principle as the water injection. It is supposedly some sort of nano technology. They are claiming a 4oz bottle will treat 150 gallons. The result is supposed to be an average of 18% millage increase. The product retails for $26.00/bottle. I have no affiliation with the product or it's distribution. Just thought it might be of interest because of the water involved.
Glad to take part
Brad

https://www.fuellegacy.com

come back to earth....this is ground control!!!!
 

I'm getting 2-3 miles mpg....whose the idiot telling you guys there's a 50% increase?

I should take a picture of the plugs I just pulled out....beautiful. Common sense says "no emissions" mean something complete and powerful is happening.