Saving MPG with Brown Gas Generator

Ken

Actually, we've had a thread here that says "I tried it and it did not work." I'd have to think of a couple key words, or remember the experimenter's name...

I'd be interested in that discussion from someone who tried a unit and failed to get it working; I have been looking for such evidence.

Then his non-HHO test shows that the scooter goes 3.1 km on 250ml of gas.

I'm not sure where you got the measurement of 250ml. At the beginning of the first clip he says that he is not sure what the capacity and that he would measure it later. 250ml is a decent sized drinking glass. Judging by the size of the container relative to his hand and the rack on the bike, I would estimate it to be 50–100ml, which would put his consumption more in line with what you would expect. The important fact, of course, is that it gets significantly further with the HHO generator running.

You are right, too, that one has to be careful when experimenting with this type of equipment and gas.

All these schemes completely leave out any discussion of mixture control. The rate of production is constant, so if the engine is not overwhelmed at idle, with the area under hood being flooded with H2/O2, then how can the tiny amount produced have any effect at all at the far greater air flow rates associated with high power?

This indeed is a valid concern but some units do have production rate adjusters. A potentiometer linked to the throttle (gas pedal) and feeding it to the control circuit, which has separate trimmer for idle and maximum ensures that the unit can be adjusted to the specifics of the engine it's installed on.

Interesting that the production rate for this tiny 50 cc scooter (one commenter said 7 amps x 12 v

It's clear that this unit is using a resistive type of electrolyser, which is far less efficient than the capacitive type. Battery drain could be an issue with that type of unit.

Thanks for your good comments.

Hi Andy, Hi Ken,

I'm the scooter guy who did that test... I measured the volume capacity of the reservoir yesterday, it's only 140ml to be exact. This is the typical container or reservoir used for small spray paint guns.

I did that test in adversity so I have to beg for your understanding... I wasn't being concise or precise in the areas that were irrelevant to me during that day. However, I was using this scooter as my daily driver in that country, I got it from the junk and Mcguyverism was the approach to get it to run for service.

The reason I did it was to prove something to myself primarily.... thats because my Father and I did a similar experiment in the early 1980's on our VW Beetle. I was curious if normal electrolysis on board can really have an effect on an SI ICE... 2 stroke for this matter. If it did, I get nothing to lose by trying.

Another item I need to clarify, the Battery is dead... I am merely relying on the charge coming from the engine... which is strong at high rpm's. My theory is, on full throttle, the electrolyzer is operating at maximum... therefore - it provides significant supplemental h2 and o2.

If the cell is a resistive type or not, I am not sure how to call it since I didnt have an ampere gauge to test it at work. The only figures I get is based on the bench RPS which is rated at 27A shows only less than 7A when I hook it there at 13.8V... with rough estimation - the scooter reving at idle will give off 12V or Less with lower AMPs... At high Rev, 13VDC to 14VDC... with the ignition load I estimate there will be about 5 to 6A going into the cell. (Allow me to use cell to indicate the electrolyzer assembly containing the electrodes). The cell is just hooked up on straight DC to the Battery without any relays, inductors or capacitors... not even a fuse nor a shank. But there was no wire heating issues therefore I conclude that the Amperage draw is lesser.

This cell was able to supply enough gas to make a welding outfit produce a sustainable flame so I figured I can use it to enhance the combustion of the scooter. I wanted to believe it can run the scooter alone... without gasoline... well - that was wishful thinking...

Another item to clarify... 140ml. actual amount or volume of reservoir plus fuel in line and fuel in float chamber... rough estimate = 10 to 20ml. We can safely assume that 3.1 km per 150ml. This brings a baseline of 20.66 km per liter. (4.8Li./100km).

This is not a new bike, it's an old engine and old carby...In engineering standpoint, we need to use a new tip top shape vehicle as the test unit, but since this is all that I have - I needed to make the most out of it.

The only things I have that day is imagination and a pile of junks.

By the way, Yull Brown doesnt consider DC electrolysis as Browns Gas... only his straight AC electrolysis... so I guess the scooter experiment is off topic. Unless of course if the engineering community will say that H2O2 and Browns Gas is one and the same.

And yes, I do have an air flow regulator from the cell to the carb intake.

By the way... I would like to know how much effect does humidity have on a SI ICE?... here in my country - we have a higher humidity, but not where I did the scooter test.

More power!...

ehnriko

Ehnriko

Many thanks for taking the time to reply. It's good to have input on this forum from someone who has actually built a unit and experimented with it. From my point of view, your subjective appraisal that the engine is more responsive with the gas, is as indicative of the effect as any of the measurements.

There are various ways of doing meaningful tests and each one has it's advantages and disadvantages. Timing the acceleration to a certain speed at full throttle, measuring the distance taken to achieve a certain speed (at full throttle), timing how long a set amount of fuel lasts at full throttle, timing how long a set amount of fuel lasts at a set maximum speed, measuring the distance achieved from a set amount of fuel at full throttle, measuring the distance achieved from a set amount of fuel at a set maximum speed, etc. Each test will be a combination of various factors including the particulars of the engine and carburettor.

Tying the gas generator into the alternator output is an elegant way of having reduced output at low revs. Simple and effective. Because your unit uses the voltage directly, it is referred to as a "resistive" or "brute force" generator. Not very efficient but clearly effective enough to create a tangible and measurable difference

DC electrolysis produces H2 at one electrode and O2 at the other; AC electrolysis produces a mixture of the two gasses at both electrodes. As you are not keeping the hydrogen and oxygen separate, the gas composition is exactly the same as "Brown's Gas", also known a "hydroxy" and "HHO" (much to the confusion of some members of this forum). What you call it doesn't really matter IMHO.

The effect of the very small amount of hydrogen is to enhance the burn or explosion of the petrol (in your case) so that the fuel is not only burnt more completely but also burns closer to the start of the power stroke. You feel it as a much more responsive but there is not enough energy content to run the engine alone.

Some people misunderstand the whole argument about HHO generators as if it were about adding [significant amounts of] energy into the mix; it's not. A better analogy would be stoking a fire. You can greatly increase the output of a log fire by riddling it with a poker. The amount of energy that you are expending is minimal but the effect can be huge because you improve the way that the fuel burns.

Happy experimenting. Keep us apprised of your results. All the best

Andy

Hi Andy,

Thank you very much for your response - I really appreciate it - it makes my day. This is the reason why we cannot take away Engineering from anything we do. Your explanation makes it very clear. I have met inventors in the past and it is common that they are not familiar with engineering or scientific nomenclatures or approaches (I can be included there). But I was taught in school (or at least I thought), that there are no inventions - only innovations. I refuse to call myself an inventor since I did not invent anything... If I designed my own electrolytic system or modules... they are simply innovations in respect to the conventional and existing systems with variations dictated by budget and reasons I believe it should incorporate.

I have enjoyed reading this thread for the past 3 days... it's a long read - but worth it. I appreciate the exchange and interaction. Rest assure I shall keep everyone posted. More power to you and the rest of the community.

Sincerely,

ehnriko

Are you aware Andy that fuels for spark ignited internal combustion engines are actually adjusted so that they do not do a total burn in the beginning of the ignition/power phase. That is what anti-knock compounds are about.

j.

Sounds like most of these people work for the government or in the oil/gas company. This is real. Its not like normal electrolosis, this uses magnetic resonance to match the frequency of Hydrogen, releasing its bond with oxygen. Its not about high AMPS! Resonance is key. Standing waves, equal forces, SACRED geometry.

Hello Guest,

Most people here do not <"....work for the government or in the oil/gas company....">

Mumbo-Jumbo like <"....This is real. Its not like normal electrolosis, this uses magnetic resonance to match the frequency of Hydrogen, releasing its bond with oxygen. Its not about high AMPS! Resonance is key. Standing waves, equal forces, SACRED geometry....."> does not prove helpful at all.

If you have definitive proof, which is repeatable by test laboratories in various Countries, and their tests prove your suppositions, then by all means place the Evidence here.

The gauntlet has smitten your cheek, and is now thrown down in front of you.

Prove what you say, if you can.

Just so you can be sure, I have no relationship of any kind with any oil company or power company, but I do, like most folks, pay these organizations for the use of their products, and would be interested in releasing myself from having to pay for energy while you are saying I can obtain that energy on a "free", or "over-unity" basis.

Kind Regards....

Great Answer!

Ken,

I would qualify what you are saying in one significant manner.

The search is unnecessary if first, instead of assuming the arrogance of believing that with a little tinkering one might beat educated physicists, chemists, and engineers, at their own game, one did a little studying of chemistry and the industrial processes of producing hydrogen.

Let me use an example that thee and I have used a number of times, e.g., running an engine on the gaseous products of destructive distillation of wood.

It is possible to obtain from wood, by distillation, flammable gases because wood is a complex material organic in nature and it is obvious, that from such organics it is possible to obtain flammable gases.

On the other hand water is chemically a very simple compound of two basic elements, hydrogen and oxygen, which are tightly bound together.

A simple consideration of it's makeup immediately can see there is not much there to play with. The reason water is a major part of the earth's surface, and hydrogen little or none, is precisely the strong bond that occurs between the two.

Anybody that has educated themselves in basic chemistry, that knows a little about valence, that has looked at the Atomic Chart of Elements, would be pretty certain to ascertain right off that obtaining hydrogen by electrolysis would be a process requiring large amounts of energy.

Further, had anybody thinking of playing around with hydrolysis of water to run a car, bothered for one moment to do what I did early on in this discussion, because I was out of date, would have looked to determine how industry producing hydrogen for industrial purposes and discovered that huge amount of energy are required to split the water atom; live-steam in the case of natural gas, and in the archaic passing of water over hot iron, again an awful lot of heat to super heat the iron.

And yes, electrolysis is also used in regions where there is an huge lot of hydro-power produced cheap electricity; emphasis on huge and cheap.

I do indeed think it arrogant for anybody in this day and age to fail to get a basic chemistry education, and as well to consider they can somehow beat out the best chemists and engineers with simply a little backyard alchemy, all the jazz about closed minds notwithstanding.

j.

Are we talking about science or nostrums.

"Don't get me wrong, some of the best modern science has been developed this way and some has subsequently been authenticated by experiment. This includes Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory for example. The problem comes when people use a similar approach to write off new ideas based on their understanding of what sort of model is relevant in a given situation."

Let's start with your last, "new ideas." Unfortunately for that argument there is nothing new there at all. Worse, if we consider the underlying purpose, even an alchemist, if he kept notes, would not consider it. As we shall see in a moment, trying things that look good because the record is not known or checked, is not science.

If you look carefully, you will find that the physicists who mainly rely in theorizing on math, are actually relying on the concrete work and practice, both successful and unsuccessful, of scientists before them. Many of the formula elements they rely on are the mathematical expression of work done and proved, of material observations made, checked, rechecked, and checked again.

Further, where the careful alchemist was concerned, keeping records, and therefore knowing what did not work in the past, put him on the road to being a scientist as opposed to a crude empiricist who only considers "understanding of what sort of model is relevant in a given situation."

All the consideration of our present situation does not accord physical possibility or reality if in the natural order of things something is impossible or alternatively impossible to achieve in terms of a cost objective.

Science is based as much on the past failures as on successes, perhaps more on the failures. The reason is that the failures serve to guide us away from areas of failure, hence to more likely success.

To the extent that lack of data effects some of today's theorizing in physics drives reliance on continued expansion of theory without a return in data proving theory, to that extent some of those theorists are heading for a fall.

The pipewelder is free to do as he wishes but repeating what has been done before and what proven theory says is impossible is silly and with Brown's gas occasionally dangerous. Neither can it lay any claim to science.

It is cheaper to buy hydrogen produced and bottled industrially if that is what he wants to run his car on. Of course energy wise there is nothing cheap about industrial hydrogen since it is produced by exposing methane to live steam or water to super-heated iron.

j.

Hey Pipewelder, I've been interested in trying out one of these units myself. After reading this thread, I don't think Ill ask any questions. It seems fairly inexpensive to build one of these units, and there's enough info on the web that you don't have to buy instructions. Just a thought, since you're burning gasoline to push air out of your way as your driving anyway, why not implement a fan system, to turn a separate alternator to power the unit. The faster you drive, the more gas would be created, running most efficiently at highway speeds. At idle it would do nothing and prevent a potential buildup of explosive gas. Let me know how your project is going.

While we are on the subject of this book, the website also mensions a fuel preheater. What are the pros and cons of a fuel preheater?

If carried in a separate tank and injected into the fuel stream it may help some. HHO is a very explosive gas and dangerous to handle. The idea of making it within the vehicle as it runs is a scam. It requires more energy to make than you get back out of it, therefore there is a net loss to the system within the moving vehicle. The problem is that you always have to put in more energy than you can get out so the system is less efficient with it than without it.

Making HHO on the ground with electric power from normal sources will require more electricity than burning the HHO will make in electricity. Using compressed HHO as as a booster in the fuel system of a car will work, but the HHO will have to be made on the ground in an open system, not in the vehicle while it is moving, which is a closed system.

"The theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis can be as high as 80-94%. This maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values only refer to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into chemical energy (combustible gasses). The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. If, however, electrolysis is accomplished using an underutilized electrical source that already exists (the excess, unused capacity of an automobile alternator, for instance), high efficiency can be routinely achieved." (sic) ... They admit that there is a net loss of 6-20% in efficiency. Then they claim that because the alternator has unused capacity, that the unused capacity can be used as if it requires no power from the system. An alternator is capable of producing more electricity, but only by using more energy from the system to produce it, so you still have a net loss in efficiency. The IC engine efficiency is not all that great to begin with.

Just as an experiment try running a small single cylinder engine at a set rpm hooked to a load [representing work] and see how much work can be done [time] per gallon of gas over a long period. Have an alternator hooked up to a battery with all the usual regulators to fire the ignition and power an electrical load. Then hook up your HHO device and see if you get more work/time per gallon. Add only water as needed. Keep careful records and let us all know your results.

My bet is that the HHO generator will increase the electrical load requiring the alternator to use more of the power being made by the engine and that it will result in a decrease in the work/time per gallon.

I don't know if anyone else caught this, but I think that it sums up the "reporter's" intelligence on this story. He states that the truck went from 9.4 MPG to 23.2 MPG a 61% (?) increase. I am not a mathematician but I believe that is more than a 100% increase. Actually, about 147% give or take. This seems highly unlikely.

I have found that people that believe in 'Air Swirls', Cow Magnets, Brown Gas, Super Hot Spark Plugs, And that the government and oil corporations keeping the water running internal combustion engines off the market, are like people that believe in ghosts, witches, and voodoo.

They may agree to get you to shut up, but inside they still believe.

Couldn't resist the bait.

Haven't read ALL the commentary, but electrlysis of water to derive Hydrogen to supplement fuel. Sounds feasible BUT

In the energy balance, starting with liquid water, add huge amounts of energy to separate the molecules, then burn the gas to derive energy and let the exhaust gasses leave through the exhaust pipe.

BUT YOU DON'T GET ANYWHERE NEAR ALL OF THE ENERGY BACK!!!!

Your exhaust gasses are just that, very hot gas that still carries with it substantial energy that you invested in the electrolysis. (Even in a hypothetical "lossless" system, the exhaust gas carries away an amount of energy that it would take to boil your initial water and then bring that steam up to the exhaust gas temperature.)

So, regardless of any other losses in the system, all you are doing is using your internal combustion engine to make some "hot steam".

Now, where is your energy coming from? There is no such things as spare energy. If you are putting load onto the alternator to get the electricity, then you are putting load back into the engine to drive the additional torque of the alternator. Higher engine load equates to increased fuel usage.

The proposed scheme seems nothing more than hot air (Or I really mean hot steam)

hello every one

i have a few questions, every one seems to beleive that fossel fuels are the only answer drill for more oil

so my questions is how much energy goes in to one gallon of gas ???

lets think about it ?

extenseve time money and energy to find it

a lot of time and energy to drill for it

energy to pump it out of the ground

energy to pump it to a transfer point

energy to move across the ocean or other means of moving to the refinery

energy to refine it to gas, desel, jet fule ect.

energy to move it from the refinery to a fuling station

energy to pump it to you car

and now we belive that we get more energy out than we put in? because its a fossel fuel

lets say insteand of electrozing water we call it refineing water to a fuel

now is it ok to get less out than you put in?

popetual motion means of no consumption of an out side source the out side source consumption in this case is water? has any one said you get back exactly the same amount that went in?

i have a few questions, every one seems to beleive that fossel fuels are the only answer drill for more oil

I think most people believe there are all sorts of other possibilities.

so my questions is how much energy goes in to one gallon of gas ???

The Argonne National Lab figures this stuff out and produces GREET figures. Gasoline is delivered from well to pump with 82% efficiency. (Pretty high efficiency, due mainly to the fact much oil can burn just as it comes out of the ground.) Liquid H2 is produced at 34% efficiency. Gaseous H2 is produced with 57% efficiency, because no refrigeration is required.

The large problem comes when you try to produce H2 on board the vehicle, because the required energy must come from somewhere. If you simply wanted an engine to run on H2, producing enough power to run the electrolysis (and nothing else), then the hydrolysis would need to run at 500% efficiency, because the engine is about 25% efficient, and the alternator is 65-70% efficient -- and all the energy used to create the H2 must come from the alternator. As you probably know, processes cannot run at over 100% efficiency, and electrolysis typically runs at 70% or so. So such an engine could not run on its own, let alone produce any useful power (to run a vehicle, for example.)

On the other hand, if you throw away the basic science, as most free energy promoters do, then anything is possible -- it's all magic.

This seems to be missing the point. The great gains reported by those who have experimented with these devices is not because they are tapping in to some magical source of unseen power but because a little bit of HHO can significantly increase the 25% efficiency of the engine, even after subtracting the energy cost of producing the HHO.

You quote 70% as the efficiency of electrolysis. This is only true for "brute force" electrolysis using the electrochemical reaction. It does not apply to "fracturing" the water using HF.

Hello AndyinHawick

Please explain in proper detail how water may be "fractured", and is that a proper scientific term.

Other Members, readers and myself, are looking forward to your energy surplus system explained in full.

Kind regards....

Dear Sparkstation

The term "fracture" is used by the patent holder. I am not sure what you mean by "a proper scientific term"? What did Marconi call his radio waves? What did Logie Baird call his television? What did John Dunlop call his pneumatic tyres? Were they "proper scientific terms"? Can we only refer to things that have been around for long enough for the scientific community to have added them to their dictionary? I use the term "fracture" to disambiguate it from "brute force" electrolysis. If you know of a better term, I am willing to use it.

You refer to my energy surplus system!
1) I can make no personal claims about this system, I am merely referring to it.
2) Why do you call it an "energy surplus" system?

Standard, "brute force" electrolysis is limited by the electrochemical reactions that describe it, viz,
2H₂O(l) → O₂(g) + 4H⁺(aq) + 4e⁻
2H⁺(aq) + 2e⁻ → H₂(g)
From this we see that for each group of four electrons passing through the cell, one molecule of oxygen and two of hydrogen are liberated. Multiplying by Avagadro's Constant, shows that 4F Coulombs (or about 386kC) of electricity liberate one mole of oxygen and two moles of hydrogen. This is the basis of the much-touted Faraday's Law of Electrolysis. Notice that the relationship is in terms of quantities of electricity and matter and is not in terms of energy. Efficiencies quoted for electrolysis can be expressed in terms of quantity of gas liberated for a given charge in relation to this amount. (Inefficiencies are due to other, unintended reactions taking place. In batteries, this is referred to as Coulombic Efficiency.)

To electrolyse water one needs a [minimum] voltage of 1.23 Volts (at 25°C). (We can also calculate an efficiency factor where the voltage is greater than the minimum as this is not needed for the chemical reaction and is wasted as heat.) From this we can extend that about 475 kilojoules (386kC x 1V23) of electrical energy is needed to liberate one mole of oxygen and two moles of hydrogen or, in other words, three moles of HHO, weighing 36g. The energy content of the 2 moles (4g) of hydrogen can therefore be referred to as being this 475kJ and so the energy density is 118kJ/g. This compares with the reported energy released by burning hydrogen as being 121MJ/kg. Roughly the same.

Electrolysing water using this formula is governed by these chemical reactions and Faraday's Law. Not all other methods of producing hydrogen [and oxygen] are governed by Faraday's Law of Electrolysis. I am not convinced that the "fracturing" of water is true electrolysis and, from the reported results, this seems to be borne out as the quantities of gas liberated are significantly more than Faraday would expect. The patent is now in the public domain and if I had the time, I would build a test unit to verify the results for myself. Perhaps, Sparkstation, you have the facilities to build this unit and test it out for the rest of the community here. On the other hand, it might be easier to make some simplifying assumptions about what's involved and write it off as impossible and all the evidence that others report as being bogus.

On the other hand, it might be easier to make some simplifying assumptions about what's involved and write it off as impossible and all the evidence that others report as being bogus.

That would be not only easier, but smarter as well. It is very sensible to say that all the evidence that people have reported is indeed bogus, if the "evidence" suggests that the amount of energy released upon burning the oxyhydrogen (known as "HHO" to scamsters) is three times the input energy, as Stan Meyer claimed (who, as you know, was convicted of "gross and egregious fraud" in connection with this "invention".)

When you say "all the evidence" do you mean evidence of the type you provided as "proof" that "HHO" injection works on a scooter? That evidence provided a very clear indication that it does not work at all -- the fuel consumption is exactly the same, with and without "HHO".

I wonder if your time would be better spent recreating Stan Meyer's "work", rather than spending time posting here, suggesting that others do that work. Sparkstation has a pretty good grasp of science, so he would seem to be one of the least likely to want to create an over-unity device. But who knows? He's the one to answer that question.

Water is the ash of H2 and O2 combustion. Why not spend time working on generating wood from wood ash?

This seems to be missing the point.

And what might that point be? I was responding to the guest who asked about the relative efficiencies of producing hydrogen vs gasoline. Directly to that point was my response that the ANL has spent millions in researching this stuff, for very good reasons -- because we can save billions in environmental destruction if we understand the life cycle costs of producing various fuels and energy storage media. Likewise, directly to that point were the figures I quoted.

The great gains reported by those who have experimented with these devices is not because they are tapping in to some magical source of unseen power but because a little bit of HHO can significantly increase the 25% efficiency of the engine, even after subtracting the energy cost of producing the HHO.

There is nothing in combustion science that would suggest that an improvement in efficiency would occur. Actual lab tests with engines running on test stands and in which various external factors are compensated, indicate no measurable change for onboard electrolysis -- even in a diesel where displacement of air is not such a concern. If you are aware of a lab test at any of the major universities with good engine labs (Birmingham, in the UK, MIT and U of Wisconsin here, etc.) -- then simply provide a link. If you are unable to find such tests, I'd suggest writing to Dr. John Heywood at MIT or Dr Miroslaw Wyszinski at Birmingham, and ask them to provide test data that would back up your assertion.

The link you earlier provided in which the "test" was a motorscooter with a broken odometer, in which the operator claims he will ride at constant full throttle, but then fails to do so, strains credulity. Does the test not seem invalid if one of the two measurements required in assessing fuel efficiency is done by a broken instrument? Any "miles per gallon" measurement is meaningless if the miles are wrong or the gallons are wrong.

You quote 70% as the efficiency of electrolysis. This is only true for "brute force" electrolysis using the electrochemical reaction. It does not apply to "fracturing" the water using HF.

Suppose we accept (without evidence) that HF electrolysis is more efficient than that practiced in lab settings. Suppose we say that your process is 90% or 95% or even 99% efficient. That does not change the fact that you still need 500% efficiency just to sustain operation, without supplying any useful energy to an external device. Are you are saying that the widely publicized, public domain HF processes produce H2/O2 at "over unity" but that these phenomenally powerful energy companies are uninterested in using such devices to make astronomical profits?

I am anxiously awaiting your description of the "fracturing" process in which you explain the measured efficiencies, and the fundamental differences between the ordinary electrolysis devices (such as the Hydro 4000), which claim astoundingly large efficiency "gains" and your special electrolysis device for which many people seem to be claiming about the same "gains". Why are their claimed gains fraudulent, but yours are not? You seem to be suggesting the "fracturing" is the key, but you haven't explained what "fracturing" is. Nor have you explained the mechanism by which the tiny amount of oxyhydrogen generated produces huge gains in efficiency. (Even if the oxyhydrogen were produced off board, and for "free" in the energy balance, how would 100 -200 watts worth of the gas have any effect on a 100,000 watt engine.)

You appear articulate, so you should be able to explain the mechanism by which engine efficiency is improved, and presumably also provide real test results. Ford F150 sales are tanking. Their revenue from 900,000 F150's was about $22,500,000,000. Now with only 300,000 sales annually, their revenue would be $7,500,000,000 (15 billion dollars less, per year.) If your device could improve efficiency as much as the Hydro 4000 claims, then Ford they would certainly pay $500,000,000 for the rights... even $10 billion would be cheap to enable them to sell more huge, high-profit vehicles.

We are anxiously awaiting your articulate description of how this system works, and the test results. You could be on your way to becoming a billionaire.

Another point you might want to address as you try to silence the engineering and science types:

In the "proof" you supplied that onboard HHO generation works, there were two scooter runs. The operator said he would maintain full throttle, and also said that the odometer did not work. (This would enable him to verbalize any distance count he so desired -- but that does not matter). In the first video (without HHO), the scooter starts running at 1:26 and runs until 6:41: 5:14 elapsed. In the second video (with HHO) scooter starts at :37 and runs to 5:49: 5:12 elapsed.

Obviously, the claimed distances are incorrect because times are the same, and the throttle settings are the same: the engine is putting out it's maximum hp all the time in both cases, so the test is more valid that the usual gibberish one sees associated with these devices. Because max HP is held, the effect of wind is largely nullified because the speed reduces and distance changes slightly, but the time at full throttle, full load, is the same.* This scooter would be producing a little over 4 hp, and did so for the same amount of time, either way. This is not quite as good as, but close to a dyno test in that respect, and demonstrates that the fuel efficiency is identical either way -- exactly as engineers would expect.

We'd expect no measurable effect, and that is what you have shown us we get! You deserve thanks for providing a test which so convincingly shows that HHO has no effect at all, even when the engine is tiny and the supply of the HHO is very large relative to the engine size. Once again, theory and practice agree.

*This gives us the real deal: BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) which is measured in fuel quantity/ unit power / unit time. Mileage claims, on the other hand, can be so easily faked (when presented remotely over the web). BSFC is the stuff of real dyno tests, its the stuff real engineers talk about... and our scooter guy shows us that there is no effect from HHO far more convincingly than any of the various mileage claims can do.

Perhaps if you can bring this up in other forums, we can end some of these HHO scams.

I have been skeptical of HHO generators all along. My idea of a good test is to drive a car at a fixed speed say 60 mph. Then without changing the gas pedal setting turn on the HHO. If it really works then the car should accelerate to a percentage roughly equal to the claimed performance increase.

If not you have been had by the mason jar salesman.

Hi Ken,

with regards to the odometer not working... It's not working 100% but the lower digit works perfectly... i am able to count kilometers from 0 to 900 meters but when it goes back to 0, i am not able to tell if it is already 2 kilometers or more, since the second digit doesn't move. So I kept track of how many times it goes back to zero. In the context of whether or not the odometer can be relied upon for an accurate reading, the answer to the question is - we can.

With regards to the smaller elapsed time on the second run, this is mainly because the scooter is running with enhanced mode already, and my ass can feel a little kick with the thing on. Top Speeds are being reached faster and my short moment of slowing down due to a road gravel is negated by the faster speeds it was able to reach in smaller times.

Of course I agree this is a more valid test, I would really recomend you do a similar test on your Trike if you have a similar power plant in it.

I am aware of the Placebo effect, believe me, there is no such thing here. I have done that test many times in order to get a more consistent data. I just didnt have the luxury of making a more high definition movie out of it.

I would like to do this test again soon but with a much accurate and reliable vehicle.

With regards to the scammers... I suggest they should do the same test to show if their device really works. The only variable that I wasn't able to control in that test was the engine behavior with regards to the same throttle position... I need to tell you that it really does have a stronger response than without. And it has nothing to do with choking the passage way of the throttle body since it was not.

More power!

hello all

there are a few things i dont understand about a toyota prius dosent this fall under yourr same problem of using a motor to charge a battery to run a motor to charge a battery when breaking but running a gas powered motor to propell you when your battires a to low to propell you then use the gas motor to recharge the battries again if that is the case then your car would consume more energy or start to loose ground on the chaging cycle and so on untill the gas powered engin was doing all the work same problem occurs to many losses but yet they still built it and is #1 seller

wouldent it just be better to put a under sized gas motor in the car and run it around town wouldent you get more out of it

some thing else to keep in mind i have tested my chevy aveo and get 35 miles to the gallon (best) with the head lights on or off (had to disconnect the day light running lights to acomplish this) there was no change with the same rout back and forth to work for a full week

Hello Guest,

I intend taking your advice, and running a 2 ton automobile on a 1.5 cc model aeroplane engine, connected with a V Belt to the original transmission.

The automobile shall be fuelled, of course, by the marvellous Browns Gas only, (no petrol, diesel or other expensive organic fuel), from the on-board Browns Gas Generator unit, powered by a single AAA battery.

Thus I shall get so much more out of it, but only if I travel downhill at all times, with a gale-force wind behind me.

I expect to get well over 1,000,000 miles per gallon of water, which I shall refill from the on-board condenser, as the completed System is thus a completely closed one, for eco-friendly and economical operations.

Should you be interested in the complete design, then advise me here, and I shall give you the number of my Lagos, Nigeria, Bank Account, for your Bank transfer in payment for my first manufactured and certified unit.

Looking forward to your reply.

Kind Regards....

Good points, Guest.

Why is the Toyota Prius so popular? How can it achieve so good a fuel efficiency? It is using a number of very good, existing technologies to squeeze the most out of the fuel it uses. Regenerative braking converts the kinetic energy of the moving vehicle to recharge the battery. As braking is one of the most inefficient things that we do in cars (I try and avoid it!), there are great savings to be had here.

Internal Combustion (IC) engines are pretty inefficient most of the time but even more inefficient under certain conditions (low revs, high revs, low load). By running the engine only for short periods to charge the batteries, under optimum conditions, the maximum efficiency can be achieved. Running a smaller engine for longer could achieve a similar result. The sizing is probably to do with a worst-case scenario where the engine needs to provide all of the power over an extended period, eg, fully laden, climbing a long, steep hill. A smaller engine would be beneficial as it would lower (slightly!) the overall weight of the car, which is one of the main factors in determining overall fuel efficiency. It is something that Toyota will have had to balance and compromise on; that is the nature of real-world designs.

It's an interesting test that you performed on your Chevy. Some on this forum would want you to run this test on a stationary rig with highly sensitive monitoring equipment rather than this real-world experiment that you carried out. Personally, I am not surprised at the result. The alternator on most vehicles can produce 40A of current to charge the battery and power any live equipment. The current is controlled by a voltage monitor so that as the battery gets charged, the current drops off. The load presented by the alternator does not vary as much as its output power and even at full load is a small fraction of the output power of the engine. The efficiency of the engine is likely to be slightly better with a slightly higher load anyway (under most but not all operating conditions), so the percentage drop would be further reduced.

Suppose that your two headlights are 50W each plus 15W each for the associated tail lights. That's a total of 130W or about a sixth of a horsepower. How big is your engine? 84BHP? That's less than a quarter of a percent! I would not expect you to notice the difference in MPG of that size. Even if you had a bank of six auxiliary headlamps of 150W each, the affect on the overall power requirement would be too small to measure without some fine equipment.

Good, clear, well-written post!

This highlights one of many reasons why the "HHO" schemes do not work. The energy used to create the "HHO" is nearly immeasurably small, and the energy content of the "HHO" (really H2/O2 mixture) is also immeasurably small. Thus you'd expect an immeasurably small reduction in efficiency.

The scammiest prompters suggest that 15% 20% or even 30% of the fuel in an engines cylinder is unburned, and so the HHO (itself a magic concept) has a magical property that causes this fictitious excess fuel to burn. This is simply a lie, but the promoters hope people don't realize that, and most do not.

Other scammy prompters suggest that this impossibly small amount of "HHO" causes measurably more rapid combustion, though there is no reason (supported by chemistry or combustion science) to believe this would be the case. We know from tests, that injection of H2 alone into the intake airstream of a spark ignition engine reduces power, as would be expected, because it displaces air needed for combustion. The best we could hope for is that the immeasurably small amount of O2 also injected would compensate for the power loss -- but again, the effect would be too small to measure on even a very good test stand dyno. (And given that the H2/O2 is generated at astoundingly low efficiency relative to the fuel energy input, we would still expect a net loss -- but again, too small to measure.)

Thus the scooter test for which you provided the link is an especially good one for quieting the scamsters. Here, the oxyhydrogen produced would be a nearly measurable portion of the intake air, because the engine is 1/100 the size of a V8, but the device current and voltage product is almost 1/4 that used on a large engine (I think the tester mentions 3 amps or something like that). The test demonstrates that the vehicle runs for exactly the same time under full load full throttle conditions. So even with the relatively large oxyhydrogen injection, there is no measurable result, just as we'd expect: 36 watts is still a very small portion of the constant 3000 watts produced by the engine. Although this promoter was intending to prove that there was a beneficial effect (my lying about the distance, because of a conveniently broken odometer) he proved pretty conclusively that there was no effect whatsoever.

Good work on finding that scooter test link.

wouldent it just be better to put a under sized gas motor in the car and run it around town wouldent you get more out of it

Basically, you are exactly correct. The proof of this can be found in looking at two versions of the Toyota Corolla. The 1.8 liter Corolla S (132 hp) with 4-speed auto gets 27/35 mpg. The XRS version (2.4 liter, 158 hp) with a 5 speed automatic gets 22/30. That's about 20% better mileage with just a slightly smaller engine.

Eventually, as you down size the engine, the car's performance becomes intolerable (although consider that millions were happy with 40 hp VWs of about 2/3 the weight of a Corolla). So how do you get reasonable performance back? Store energy in batteries, make the engine run under higher load (by charging batteries when the load would otherwise be light) and you further increase efficiency but get the performance back for bursts of speed and passing.

How far you go, and exactly how you go about it, involves hundreds of decisions and compromises, and unfortunately a fair amount of complexity.

But you are right: the smaller engine Corolla is proof, and the Old Geo Metro is further proof: it got the same mileage as a Prius, but at much lower cost (granted, without standard climate control, a large interior, upscale trim, etc.) The three cylinder Metro was rated at 44 and 49 mpg, which in today's new rating scheme would be about 40 and 45 -- the same as a Prius. The Metro had the additional benefit of consuming about half the energy in its construction. (In environmental "goodness" the Metro wins hands down.)

The Toyota Camry Hybrid might be a slightly better argument for hybrids. It gets 40 mpg, and is competes directly with the new Honda Accord which only gets about 26 overall. Whether you can justify the price diff depends on how and how far you drive, but you can also justify some of the price just because the idea of getting great mileage is appealing -- there is no rational reason for buying a $100,000 Mercedes or a $300,000 Lamborghini. At least in the Hollywood set, the Prius has proven to sell just for its "cool" factor -- largely irrational, but 90% of vehicles are purchased for mainly irrational reasons, I'd say. We should all be driving Chevy Aveos, if rationality ruled. It's a nice little car, fun to drive, doesn't cost a lot, and is efficient. What more could anyone want?

I think others have answered the headlight question: the power consumed (100 watts+/-) is just too small compared to an average HP level of about 30 HP (22,380 watts) to be measurable. When the engine is producing very low power (such as idling) then if you listen closely you can sometimes hear the engine load up when the lights are turned on. (On some small cars, the idle speed is automatically increased when you turn on certain accessories.)

Update:

The Hydro4000 will be retested by WPTV under the supervision of Dr Abtahi of Florida Atlantic University. If this test is done well, then it could serve as a valuable resource for helping to make people aware of these scams and other "over-unity " scams. If poorly done, it coud be a source of embarrassment to Dr Abtahi, the University and the TV station. I wrote Dr Abtahi with some suggestions, such as running several tests, alternating one after the other, with and without H2/O2 injection. This way any effect of the vehicle warming up over the tests would be filtered out. Obviously, using real fuel flow measuring equipment would make sense, but it seems that the dyno lab is not so equipped.

I was concerned about their plan to do one test a month after doing the first test on a Tahoe, by running the tank dry in each case, and then using a carefully measured 1.5 gallons until the fuel runs out, in both cases. (The vendor of the Hydro4000 claims that the unit must be installed for a month before it works up to its potential. Given the infinitesimal amount of gases injected, it's hard to imagine any effect whatsoever on the engine, even after years.*) I think running a series of tests, one after the other on the same day is essential, if only to filter out the effects of different weather, different fuel sources, etc.

If you have additional suggestions for the test (and particularly if you have dyno test experience) I imagine Dr Abtahi would be happy to hear from you. Better that he hears before the test than afterwards. His email address is available on the Florida Atlantic University site.

* I assume the real reason for the month delay is to thwart immediate return of the product when the user finds it does nothing. The vendor's hope is that in a month, placebo effect will take over, or that the user will be too busy to uninstall and return the unit.

Ken,

It will be nice to see some actual data, although it sounds like they are not really off to a good scientific start. They can't afford or find a fuel measuring monitor?. Or, perhaps even more accurately and inexpensively, use a container (such as a separatory funnel with stopcock) connected to the fuel line, which can be accurately weighed before and after a run? 1.5 gallons in a 16 gallon tank would seem to leave a lot of slop when the tank is "run dry".

I did run across this, ETV Canada certification of Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company's Hydrogen Fuel Injection (HFI) System:

The ETV program works like this: the company (Canadian Hydrogen Energy) contracts with an accredited laboratory for testing, then submits the data to ETV, which issues the certification. Now, this is not a perfect scenario. If it were me, I would provide a test vehicle which I felt would demonstrate the very best increase in fuel economy (they used a '92 diesel). Also, I assume that since the company contracts directly with the testing lab, that they could be selective about which data to submit to ETV.

The results? A 4.44% reduction in fuel consumption. Now, on their website they show up to 40% increase in mpg, and guarantee at least 10%. Hmm.

The test results do show significant reduction in pollutants, which I think is fairly well established by other controlled tests. Perhaps the biggest effect is cleaning up the engine, so that fuel economy is back where it should be, on a tired engine.

Tad

I read the test report on the Canadian Hydrogen Energy product a while ago and was not well impressed. The actual test report (which the ETV looked at rather uncritically -- they are much more like a chamber of commerce than an EPA) seems oddly congratulatory for a lab report -- it reads like a sales pitch: http://www.chechfi.ca/pdfs/ctmv2.pdf.

In it:

"You are to be commended for your continuing research in support of a system for enhancing environmental air quality. We look forward to working with CHEC in future efforts to explore the vast opportunities for use of the Hydrogen Injection System (HIS)."

The report contains no before and after data, so how could the ETV have made any determination on the validity of CHE's claims?

The situation with diesels is completely different than that for spark ignition engines, and 99% of the hydrolyzers are installed on spark ignition engines and advertised for use on such engines. In a diesel, injecting H2 should increase power for a given accelerator setting (unless the engine is at full power and there is insufficient excess air). Under cruise conditions, you'd expect to be able to displace some diesel fuel with H2. H2 injection (and injection of other gases) in diesels has been shown to reduce emissions in a slightly larger degree than to be expected by the fuel displaced. These tests, however are with large injected quantities of H2: 5% and even more. The amount of H2 produced by these electrolyzers is at least an order of magnitude less, particularly for truck usage, where the cruise power can be 100 - 200 hp. Using 150 hp as an average, that's 111,303 watts, with most electrolyzers claiming rather low consumption -- 84 watts for the Hydro4000 and I think I remember about 250 watts for the Canadian truck version. 250 watts would be 1/445 of the engines power output (and assuming 30% diesel efficiency) roughly 1/1500 of the fuel input.

So, do I remain skeptical that this (onboard generation of gases from water) can have any measurable effect whatsoever, even in a diesel? Yes.

In a gasoline engine, any H2 injection simply displaces air so power is reduced. If the H2/O2 generation process were 500% efficient, then the extra O2 could cause eh H2 to burn, and there would be no measurable loss in power, but no expected gain. But that's only if you believe that the H2/O2 can be produced at 500% efficiency.

The Hydro 4000 site says "With these products energy in must equal energy out, so they just don't work!" (http://www.hydro4000.com/faq.htm) This assessment comes straight from one of the promoters of the technology. (They are evidently hoping that you conclude that their system somehow violates thermodynamic laws, unlike all the rest???)

Assuming an in floor dyno. Dyno should be used to induce a steady load to the rear wheels. Once the load is established, hook vehicle up to good engine analyser and 4 gas exhaust analyser. Make sure test vehicle is running within proper parameters. If mix is too lean plugs will burn down prematurely, increasing gap, changing parameters. If mix is too rich carbon will build up closing gap, once again changing parameters.

Tahoe's parameters should be computer controlled which means there are various sensors, at least 3 different temperature sensors, 1 or 2 oxygen sensors, MAF sensor or MAP sensor or both, crank sensor, throttle body position sensor and some others I can't think of at the moment.

Computer scan should reveal any problems with these sensors IF the problem is not intermittent and has happened at least 50 times in order to set a code in the computer.

I had a tune up shop with an in floor dyno in the seventies when cars were a lot less complicated. At that time it was recommended to tune up once every 6 months. Recommended tune up intervals have increased dramatically since then. Things that were problems then have given way to a host of new and harder to trace problems today.

The basics pretty much remain the same, however. Quality of fuel is a big factor. Poor quality fuel can leave deposits in the throttle body causing turbulence in the air stream and gumming up throttle plate and shaft (causing incorrect readings from throttle position sensor). Carbon deposits can foul oxygen sensors, causing the computer to lean or enrich the mix. The variables are endless. Proper spark plug gap is critical.

I think all these testing parameters are way over the top.

Take a simple car, one that is not under the influence of a engine management computer and stick it on a dyno. Run it up to where ever you please and take a horse power measurement. Then turn on the HHO system without changing anything else and take a measurement.

Why make it so darn complicated, it either works or it does'nt.

Distilled water & mineral water, ot distilled water alone.

www.wndu.com/home/headlines/26128864.html

For a legitimate test of these devices, which shows that they do nothing beneficial, see the Popular Mechanics test.

The TV station tests are typically very poorly done, and some, such as the "test" done by WPTV, are effectively paid endorsements, and not real tests at all. The WPTV site has links to the Hydro 4000 site, just as this WNDU site has. A reasonable assumption is that the TV station makes money from click-throughs, and (for the bidirectional links to WPTV from Hydro 4000) that the TV station drives up its page views, making its advertising more valuable. Why else would the TV station WPTV first claim an incredible 146% improvement from the device, and then renege only after pressured to do another test which was itself hideously flawed?

$1,000,000 of Hydro 4000s were sold in two month after the WPTV piece, making both the scammer and the TV station happy. Looks like WNDU wants to get some cash too.

Hello Blink

I agree with what you say.

If you want to know what's really going on: Follow the Money Trail.

Kind Regards....

Hello, Of course it works... But you need to know what you are doing. This is probably not the right forum/ or thread to get information in going about your personal experiment. But there are plenty of sites where you can get more info to do it right and safely. try hhoinfo.com Enjoy.

I'm still here................Welcome to CR4!

You did the work.

You did the experiments.

You concluded that it is not worth the trouble.

The fact that you put yourself through the experience to find the answer will make make you a welcome addition to this site.

That's the kind of knowledge we need around here. Don't be a stranger.

Dear Sir,

I had some experiences to the particular subject during 1987-1989, initially, I used a small Mitsubishi Van with a small (1342cc) gas engine, I hand madely build the generator utilized unused home appliances and some ex industrial materials in order to minimized the cost.

It was just a bit of glory when I firstly used the system, It provide me less than 10% of fuel reduction and serial of busted battery and alternator, but all the things was not represent the actual reliability of the system, You see, I did not follow the proper measured in the methodology of research or experiment. (please refer to my previous thread).

There is a certain law that You have to dealing with:

1. Since the used of HHO is proven to be a best choice to reduce fuel consumption, so the basic rule You have to follow is choosing a system that suitable to Your need, not a system that "looks suitable" because it have a hefty price tag.

2. HHO generator relies on the quality of electrical system in Your car and of course the quality of the "electrolyzed" water. please make Your self be sure of Your alternator performance can match the need the electricity to produce the amounts of gases You need.

3. As we knows, The HHO is the substitute substance of gasoline or diesel fuel, If You intents to make a large quantity of substitutions so You need a bigger HHO generator and bigger generator means More electric current to draw from Your car electrical system, so please, make sure that Your electrical system will able to accommodate the "extra" job.

4. Today there are hundreds of HHO systems is available as commercial products, take Your time to make a good research and ask the people who use it, make a visit if You have too and choose one that You think is the best choice.

5. Do not forget to Your engine setting, modern automobile engine is now packed with a hi tech feature in order to make the engine operates more efficient, more clean and more silent but mostly all those features does not support the HHO system add on, pay more attention to the Oxygen sensor (air flow sensor), and ignition timing, make sure that Your HHO system is equipped with features that can manipulate the data/parameter of Your existing system.

Well that's all,

Good Luck