Water for fuel, scam?

anyone that desires to prove laws of science wrong has the burden of proff and none of them have provide that proof. They post testimoials, paid testimonials. Turn the sites in to the FTC. Thats what I do.

I have a question as to what laws you are talking about. Please list them so I can look them up and understand your post. Everyone say it is against the laws of science. I am not sure which laws you are talking about. It is not true that hydrogen burns cleaner and cooler then oil based fuels. Also is it not true that water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. If these things are not true please let me know why and were you get your info from.

I'm not sure at what level you're interested. You're certainly correct in saying that hydrogen burns cleanly. You're also correct in saying that water comprises two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

The claims for "HHO" are generally made in terms of achieving greater energy efficiency, sometimes even in excess of 100%. The scientific law that says anything in excess of 100% is not possible is the Second law of Thermodynamics.

The scientific law that says that even 100% is not possible is the Third law of Thermodynamics.

The scientific law that tells you quickly the efficiency of a heat engine is Carnot Efficiency.

The law that says you cannot make false claims about energy efficiency in a product offered for sale is Part 16 of the CFR (among others).

No that is not what I am saying. I never said that Hydrogen burns at 100% efficiency you are say that I did. All I am saying is that hydrogen will help the gas in a vehicle burn cleaner and more efficiently. Also it will help keep a engine cleaner and run cooler. Which in turn will give you better MPG and if you use a complete system and good driving habits you can get around 20-30% increase in MPG.

Thant is what I am saying.

another way to tell its a scam, cooler engines are less efficient, read up on your thermo...

I think you need to read up on how a combustion engine works and when it is the most effecent and also wears less. More heat to the internal components to a engine is never good. Why do you think engine makers go to so great lengths to keep the engine run cool. So according to you the hotter the better. Thank just show that most people on here a one tracked mind. No matter what this type of fuel will not work and that is it.

you read up, the greater the temperature the lower the entropy loss. So its a trade off, High temp, greater fuel efficency, greater capital and operating expence.

If you lower the temp in the cylinder of an IC engine, the fuel efficency drops, but life goes up. But if you already get 200,000 miles out of the design and the life goes up to 250,000 miles, but fuel eff drops 5%, what did you gain?

No, Bud, you're the one on the wrong track here.

From an engine designer's point of view the atainment of the adiabatic state is heading towards the most efficient. That means, the hotter the better. I see your vision clouded by the practice of keeping the cooling system temp down so as to prevent meltdown of the engine construction. Quite opposed to reaching for efficiency.

Look at the changes in dynamics over the last 50 years: peak pressures have trippled, and temps have grown 200 deg C (and more). NO, I'm not talking about cooling systems. I'm talking about dynamics INSIDE the combustion chamber. That's where it all starts.

Cheers

Stu

Wow you are just not getting what I am saying. I work with designers everyday and engineer's everyday and you a one for sure. I do like the uses of the word adiabatic state very nice. It is hard not to use big words for you is it not.

Wow you really slammed me into the ground and set me straight I am so thankful. i am not sure how to repay you. Wait I know i will end with a cool line that make me feel smart and cool.

Let us see what will I write.

Life is like a box of chocolate's you never know what you are going to get.

Hello Taganan

Until there are people who never bother to check out claims against the well-established Laws of Physics, Websites like that one are going to prosper at the expense of the credulous.

That one has an unusual <"....56 day period, and if you're not satisfied, we refund promptly....">

I cannot work out the significance of the 56 day period, it is such an odd period.

Most persons who would purchase such a thing, for the US$49.97 cost are going to believe they have the bargain of the century, and no simple argument is going to persuade them that the investment was a waste of money.

Kind Regards....

Sparky - They're crackpots so maybe 56 has some meaning in numerology.

I have been around and around with them and am tired of their nonsense. I suppose this site should be reported to someone and shut down, but I don't know who or how. Perhaps the FTC is the way to go as was suggested.

Gentlemen,

While I agree that the HHO gas saving concept is silly, I have not seen any of you answer the original question:

"Here's another one of those HHO scams. Is there any way of proving them wrong so conclusively that they stop?"

It is not good enough to scream "well established laws of physics" or "Laws of science" and then simply call the proponents "crackpots" or other derogatives.

Provide the "well established laws of physics" in a consise summary format for those of us who have forgotten, or stop being offended by the con-men.

or stop being offended by the con-men.

con-men do not advertise themselves as con-men, one has the spend time wading through the B.S. to determined that. That is what the beef is about.

And the responses are focused on that.

I've reported WPTV in West Palm Beach Florida to the FCC: they were clearly not acting in the public interest, when they "tested" the Hydro4000 and found their Dodge Durango mileage went from 9.4mpg before "HHO" to 23.2mpg with "HHO". The Hydro 4000 site still uses the picture of a WPTV reporter to hype the product, and links to the "news" broadcast, unfairly lending credence to their claims.

They are going to retest the Hydro 4000, under the guidance of Dr Abtahi of Florida Atlantic University. I wrote Dr Abtahi twice with suggestions for ensuring that the test is valid; he has not responded. Their plan has been to run the vehicle dry, fill with a measured 1.5 gallons, do the test on a dyno, and repeat. Unfortunately, they did the first test (without injection) a month before doing the "with HHO" test, on the vendors guidance that "the Hydro 4000 needs to be pre-charged and on a vehicle for 30-days to achieve maximum effectiveness." *

From the WPTV site:

On July 9th, FAU's team will once again test the Chevy Tahoe on the dynomometer. This time the Hydro 4000 device will have been on the vehicle for more than a month. The FAU team will re-run the same test again, and then will be able to conclude whether the Tahoe has had an increase in miles per gallon of gas.

To be a reasonable test, especially when using the "run it dry and refill procedure" (which is prone to error because the tank bottom is typically very broad so a small change in level can be a relatively large change in volume, and can have areas that do not fully communicate or seek a common level when near empty) several tests would need to be run, one right after another: with "HHO", without, with, without, etc. Their plan of doing only one test after a month's lag is foolish, I think... the mileage on the truck has changed, the weather has changed, the fuel used has changed, etc. etc. If the dyno facility has fuel flow measurement equipment, this would be faster, easier, and more reliable. (Unfortunately, good fuel low measuring equipment is costly, in these days of sealed fuel systems and return flow from injectors.)

I will write the dyno facility where the test is done. This could be very good publicity for them if the test is done correctly, or very poor publicity if it is not. (The station's first test, I am virtually certain, was done with two different load settings on the dyno -- probably intentionally on the part of the vendor, but perhaps without the knowledge of the station personnel.) (Nowhere in the TV report do they mention setting the load the same for both tests -- a critical component of the test. Only speed and RPM, not load, are shown in the video. 9.4 mpg is reasonable for a Durango going "uphill" on the dyno -- i.e., with load set high, and 23.2 is reasonable for a Durango going slightly downhill -- load set low.)

I think having additional people writing to Dr Abtahi might be helpful, to let him know the world is watching, and that a valid, repeatable, accurate test is called for.

The only response got from the FCC was an email that was to supposed have an attachment, but nothing was attached.

The fact that the station's website maintains an active link to the product website, despite all the questions they must have received leading to the retest, seems pretty sleazy, as does their allowing the product promoters to use their news reporter's image. Perhaps the station is not "in on it" but it's easy to make the case that they are. The first video makes the case that the Dodge is in good condition, freshly maintained and tuned up before the test. But now they say the vehicle has a history of maintenance issues. Right, sure.

* The real reason for the 30 day wait is to prime the customer for no immediate change from installing the device, (so it is not immediately returned) and then to allow ambivalence and laziness to set in, so the customer never gets around to returning it.

I have a Dodge Durango, and 9.4 mpg is fairly routine for that vehicle. Your contention that 23.2 mpg "...is reasonable for a Durango going slightly downhill..." is a stretch. In order for MY Durango to get 23.2 mpg, it would have to be going downhill at a 45º angle with the engine shut off. I have had this vehicle for three years (bought new) and I don't believe I have ever gotten better than 12 - 13 mpg. So I would be very happy, indeed, to get 23.2 mpg. That is a significant improvement.

That being said, I admit that I, too, am somewhat skeptical about these HOH conversions kits. So, I bought the plans last week. I figured for $50 US (plus the cost of the materials), I can gamble a little. As I said, I just got the plans last week, so I haven't done much but read them. I don't have an abundance of free time, so I don't know how long this will take, but I will report my findings when available.

One last observation, I don't intend to test my handiwork on a dyno initially. It is my intention to monitor the mileage for a measured period, say 30 days, without the unit installed and then do the same with the unit installed. Along with that regimen, I plan to drive a measured course of approximately 300 miles or so, and then repeat with the unit installed. All the while, I will drive at the same speed and try to duplicate the course as closely as I can. This should result in a finding that is representative of the unit's capabilities.

I feel that any increase in mileage that is even close to that claimed for the Durango in the test cited will be a milestone in the development of this technology (or lack thereof). And, as I stated above, I will report my findings on this forum, though it may be a while.

Re: 9.4 mpg

The new EPA figures for the 2000 Durango are 13 city, 18 hwy and 15 combined. These new figures for most cars are very close to averages reported by drivers. A vehicle rated for 18 hwy will easily get 23.2 when going down grade, as can be seen in any vehicle with a trip computer, some of which will read 99.9 mpg when coasting downhill. Even over-the-road trucks, with the aerodynamics of a brick, have to brake, downshift, or use Jake brakes to maintain legal speed limits on a 6% slope (the maximum interstate highway slope). My Honda only requires a 4% slope to maintain 55 mph with no fuel consumption at all. On a dyno, the load can be set easily to a downgrade load, because there is no aero drag, and only half the rolling resistance (because the front wheels are stationary).

Re your building an electrolyzer:

Excellent!

We will await your findings. I think your plans for measuring mpg are pretty good.

Thanks, Ken. My analogy about going downhill at a 45º angle was a little exaggerated. I was trying to say that the Durango with the big HEMI engine does, indeed, get very poor mileage. The part about never getting more than 12 - 13 mpg is correct, though. I have asked the dealer about this and was told "You wanted the HEMI didn't you? What did you expect?" I have had other vehicles and I don't think that I ever attained the EPA estimated mileage from any of them. I attribute that to my dirving habits. I don't think I ever go under 80 on the highway. I travel about 50K miles per year (but not with the Durango).

As for the test, I am kind of excited to get to it and I will, indeed, let you know my findings.

56 days = 8 wk.

56

5+6=11

1+1=2

2 = 2 good 2 be true.

Hi All

Well 56 days is 8 weeks - I guess that's a reasonable "money back if not satisfied period" - who cares whether it's 56 days or two calendar months - the important issues are (1) Is there any merit in the plans offered - I doubt it - and (2) Would you really get your money back - I'm not volunteering to find out.

Regards

John

Eight calendar weeks.

They will always be around as long as there are people that listen.

As P.T. Barnum said, "There's a sucker born every minute".

I like to add, a fool with its money are soon departed.

As it says in the advert though

"running your car on water IS fully reversable..."

It certainly is reversable (if you were daft enough to try it in the first place) - but with massive mechanics labour costs!

I have to agree that there are many scams out there. But the concept of inducing some HHO into an internal combustion engine to assist in fuel mileage is reality.

The testing that has been done does not achieve the claims that have been posted many places on the internet, but a 5% to 6% increase at todays prices is substantial, and may be worth the investment.

But who has a unit that does this, and more importantly who has a unit that is safe.

This energy problem is not going to go away, to hide our heads in the sand and hope the tide hurries up and goes out, will drown us.

The world needs to look at all crazy ideas and develop what we can to slow down this tide, and get our heads out of the sand.

If as much effort was used to develop new sources of energy as has been used to complain about the problem the problem would have been solved.

It is my belief that there are energy sources within this world that we have not even thought of yet.

My Opinion::

Fully agree with this...even if it takes feeding banana peels to a reactor on the back of a D,Lorean

hi i think u r also made fool as i was made i thought of making the same hho system for my prototype engine but after 2 months research on this gas i found the result that ENERGY CAN NEITHER BE CREATED NOR CAN BE DESTROYED SO WHEN U SUPPLY ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO WATER TO MAKE HHO GAS THIS SUPPLIED ENERGY IS STORED IN THE GAS AND THIS STORED ENERGY IS RELEASED WHEN WE COMBUST IT SO ITS BETTER THAT WE USE THIS ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO POWER AN ELECTRIC MOTOR INSTEAD OF STORING IT IN THE FORM OF A COMBUSTIBLE GAS ,ELECTRIC MOTOR IS 90% USEFUL CONVERSION WHEREAS ELECTRICAL ENERGY TO GAS TO IC ENGINE USE IS ONLY 30% USEFUL SO ITS BETTER TO USE A MOTOR INSTEAD OF WASTING THAT ENERGY IN GAS CONVERSION

Please STOP SHOUTING! People here are trying to get some sleep.

Hello all. First time poster but been reading since my summer EE internship started. I really should join. :P

But as far as this system goes, some of it works. I am not sure about the above program, but as far as water4gas.com goes (the second link claiming to be double), it does work. My dad and I saw it and as a sort of father/son project, we decided to test it out as he wanted more MPG and I was curious and know about electrolysis and the concept.

Now mind you, we did not buy the books. We kinda just went with it and designed our own system. Taking a jiff peanut butter jar, we placed two copper rods (bent back and forth as to maximize the size (area) and filled it with water up till about an inch from the top and put in a table spoon of baking soda. The output went into the air system directly after the air filter.

My dad threw it on his car and drove his normal 40 minute commute to work with it on there, and then took it off coming home. His '05 Nissan went from 32 MPG up to 43 MPG.

So it does work. With further testing so far we have tried the below with the following results:

Above: 32 to 43 MPG, approx. 9A of current, did end up disforming bottle due to massive heat (as we all know, current produces heat, and a hot day did it in). Switched to glass jar for all further tests, Average speed - 60 MPH

Above except stainless steel rods: 32 to 49 MPG, approx. 14A of current, Average speed - 60 MPH

Stainless Steel plates (1"x5"): Varying MPG, approx 25A of current, this system is our latest test, we started with a 15A fuse and progressed up to a 25A currently as they kept blowing as we drove to Pittsburgh from Erie (checking approx every 20 minutes for a blown fuse we threw in the circuit), the final MPG only ended up being 47 but with the fuses blowing so often the system was really only on for about 1/3 of the time. When we did arrive, the fuse was intact but the water had evaporated to half of about what we started with, Average speed - 80MPH

We are still performing tests on it here and there along with another of my dad's friends, but it does help with gas mileage.

If you think I am just tooting for the company, I am not. I actually built one and installed it and saw it does help. Is it anywhere near total water for gas, oh god no... But the HHO does help with gas mileage. If anyone would like, it would be a great help to build one yourselves and try things out and post them here, as the more engineers, the faster the results will happen. Our next ideas is the stainless steel plates with half the baking soda as to slow the reaction slightly.

If anyone would like to know more, or would like pictures of one of our prototypes, email me at anarkibarsity@gmail.com.

That was me... Yeah. Finally registered AFTER posting. But glad to be part of the community. As an Electrical Engineering student, I find the discussion on here interesting, not to mention the help it has given me.

Of course, as an electrical engineer, you know you need to measure and include the energy drained from the battery used to disassociate the water.

How much gas will it take to charge the battery back the 25 amp-hours it used? It will be much cheaper if you charge the battery from a wall outlet. Then you will have a plugin-hybrid car!

Were did you come up with the 25 amp hr number. If you go with what you are saying then every time you use your wiper blades they you will loss half of the charge of your battery. The average wiper motor use around 25 amps to run. I hope you never have to drive in the rain. :).

I'd be interested to know which car has a 25a wiper motor. To run through a 10a fuse?

Stu.

My Dodge ram 2002 has a 35 amp fuse for the wiper motor and my 1984 BMW 318i has a 35 amp fuse for the wiper motor. Also ever since vehicles have had intermittent wiper motors installed on them they have at the very least a 25 amp fuse (there is always the one or two exceptions of course but as a rule of thumb they are at least 25 amp). I would like to see you put a 10 amp fuse in for your wiper motor and drive in the rain. You would not get very far. I can name 50 more vehicle that have at least a 25 amp fuse in there wiper system.

I have no idea what size fuses other cars have but curiosity made me check my cars. I looked in the fuse block at what is actually there. Two Cars have 10 amp Fuses, the big one has a 15 amp fuse on the wiper motor. BTW snow is much tougher on wipers than rain, we have had much more snow and rain here this year than normal. We drove all three cars every day during the winter, through all sorts of nasty storms and never had a fuse blow. In 48 years of driving I have never had a wiper motor fuse blow (Though to be fair the first many years the wipers used vacuum power so it would have been a real strain to blow a fuse).

I know other cars have smaller fuses in them. I do fix that things that I am writing about (I am any aircraft mechanic and a ASE certified auto and diesel mechanic). I have for over 20 years that is what make me different then you. You write then check . I check then write. Also It depends how big your wiper motor is on your car and how may position's you have for delay. Also what the make of car is that you have. If you have heated seat you will find around a 40 or 50 amp fuse. Since you live in the cold a see than you would have used that a lot. All I am say is a good HHO cell do not need more then a 15 to 20 amp fuse and should not draw more then 12 amps and no more then 2.0 vtls. I know that your alternator can handle that all the time. Seeing it supplies more then that to your battery to charge it. Also yes the cell will use energy but what it uses is made up with the increase of MPG. No matter how long or small the increase may be. With gas only going up and up with no end in site.

Again, its a thermodynamics issue, not a certified mechanics issue...

Yes it issue of mechanics and how an combution engine works in real world and how to make it better for the people who drive them. That in fact is the issue.

The 25 amp-hour came simply from his statement that the most recent version of his system drew about 25 amps and the trip took about an hour. Actually the trip took 40 minutes each way so the actually energy draw from the battery was 25 x (40/60) x 2 amp-hours for the round trip.

TOUCHE!

Congratulations on improving your miles/gallon. I am skeptical that the increase can be attributed to introducing H₂ and O₂ (not HHO) into your manifold. I am, afterall, the sort of engineer who still believes in out-dated notions; such as conservation of energy. I wonder (I am not a motor-head) if there is a way of checking to see what effects this gas is having on your engine management system. I have a suspicion that the car's computer is adjusting the fuel injection and causing the engine to run lean. This would indeed use less gasoline but would also result in very bad long-term damage to valves and pistons.

Hello

You are actually backward on your thinking. The cars computer will make the car run richer. Why you say because the O2 sensor will tell your computer that the exhaust it to lean and so the computer will ask for more fuel. It might take a 1/2 of tank of gas or so but it will. The reason it will tell the computer to run richer is because gas enriched with hydrogen and oxygen burns cleaner and hotter. Which the O2 sensor takes as running lean. So you have to install an enhancer for the O2 sensor or one for the MAP or MAF sensor. This is the issue that most systems do not address and like one post said on here "you did not install it correct or tune it correct". So we will not give you your money back. If you have a good system by that I mean one that works not the most expensive to make hydrogen. Use an enhancer to keep your computer from added more fuel then you need you will get results. Yes have to lean of a mixture s bad so you have to watch your engine temp. and make sure it does not get to high. Also check your spark plugs after a few weeks with the system installed and make sure you are not running to lean. So the last thing you need to is make sure you get is good instruction's on how to install the system and tune it. I would also make sure they offer tech support after the sell.

Actually, a zirconium oxide oxygen sensor will read the excess oxygen without regard to whether the exhaust is clean or dirty; it is very specific for oxygen. I've used them in coal fired flue analyzers and in hydrogen fired burners and there is no discernible difference. Further the temperature will normally be maintained by an internal heater far above (I hope!) the exhaust temperature. You might want to Google Bosch lambda sensor and/or Nernst cell. The technology is well-known and well-documented. Many HHO sellers make claims about the lambda sensor that are simply not true and I fear they have misled you.

What I meant by clean was it gas will burn cleaner with the mixture of Hydrogen add to it. The burn will by more complete and that will seem like a lean mixture to the O2 system. As far the heat part of my statement was with a cleaner burn of the fuel you will get a hot burn. It is true with almost all fuels that burn clean. Also I have read almost all the technical info I can find on O2 sensor. I have been dealing with them since 1983 when I first became an auto mechanic. Also if there is any temperature that is out of range or a to lean reading to the O2 system for a period of time the engine ECU will go in to what is call full rich or limp mode. This is a fact because it is bad to have your vehicle run to lean for to long. This is also why it is not a good idea to run or car for fairy long when you have a bad o@ sensor. Your car will run full rich when you have a bad O2 sensor.

O2 sensors sense O2, not "cleaner and hotter".

See the Bosch Automotive Handbook for a discussion of how O2 sensors work in conjunction with closed loop injection systems.

This is the issue that most systems do not address and like one post said on here "you did not install it correct or tune it correct". So we will not give you your money back.

Are you saying that you are one of the vendors? If so, are you saying that you do not give people their money back if, in your opinion, the device was not installed correctly? Failing to "tune it correct" would not damage the device, so the device should be returnable for a full refund under laws of implied merchantability, true?

Yes you are part correct in your take on O2 sensor. It does sense O2 and other things. Do you know what is meant when a mechaninc tells you that the engine is run cleaner? It means there is less gas in the exhuast and other by products of gas. If you have less gas and by products and more O2 then you have a cleaner and hotter running engine. So when you have a cleaner and hotter run engine like you will when you add some thing like Hydrogen to your fuel to help it burn gas cleaner which will make it hotter. Then when you are in closed loop the O2 sensor and either a MAP or MAF sensor depending on your vehicle. Your computer tells for fuel injectors to add more fuel. That is where most people that try the system or sell the system fail. You have to stop your computer from adding more fuel. Do to the cleaner and hotter exhaust that is generated for the better fuel burn. Like you said a combustion engine is not very efficient and the computer knows this. So does that automaker and oil companys.

OH, now its a hotter engine, make up your mind. O2 sensors read O2, nothing else. The only way to get more O2 in the exhaust is to run lean. If you run to lean you burn a hole in the pistons, which matches your running hot statement.

You tell the ECU to make the engine run lean, which means premature engine failure and higher NOx emmissions that your Catalytic converter BURNS and gets hotter!!!

You are correct to lean is bad. The computer tells the engine to run to rich most of time and waste to much fuel. It has been know ever since the auto makers have been using a computer to control the fuel in engines. Cars that came out before they had computer control run with less waste if they were maintained correctly. Then the cars that are made today. Your catalytic converter is used to remove the fuel and unburned waste from your exhaust. That is why they burn up when you have a car that runs to lean. I am not talking about leaning your engine out all the way. Just enough to stop letting your computer tell you fuel injectors for give more fuel. When the fuel that is being used is the correct amount. Why to you think the car makers want a car to use to much fuel. Maybe you should ask that question to your self. Take a look at your exhaust pipe is it black on the inside. If so you are wasting fuel. Maybe you like doing that but most people to do not.

they do it to meet NOx and CO emmissions. SO what do you want, smog or gas mileage? You can only chose 1.

No I choose both which can be had. I think you have been had by the make makers. If the improvements are so great why is the smog getting worse and not better? I know it is because people like me refuse to give in to people who only think in one direction and can not see what is it front of them.

I almost forgot to but some comment that makes me sounds smart on here. What should I write.

I know do not eat yellow snow. The sun will come up tomorrow. Plant your corn early this year. The check is in the mail. I wont c_ _ in oh sorry Can not say that on here. Do not give up people HHO does work and the results will show these people that we are not a stupid like they think.

And I will work with the FTC to protect people that sell scams. Either buck up and have the system proved in a lab or face concequences.

This site is funny. As many people think that they know it all and have the answers. The dyno test this the lab that. I do not see any dyno or labs driven down the highway. Even the race team know there is a difference between the dnyo and real world. That is why we spend so much time at the track . That is some thing that most people on here can not handle and will never get.

It is comments such as this that serve only to demonstrate the ignorance of the poster. Anyone who knows anything at all about race-car development knows that the engine development is done mostly in the workshop/lab, and generally involves many, many hours of dyno testing to optimise the engine performance, fuel consumption and reliability, with only a small amount of track time required to confirm the results. Chassis and suspension development are a different story of course, since the track is the only place where you can really test these things.

From the Formula 1 rule book

Article 22: Testing
'No competitor may carry out more than 30000km of testing during a calendar year.'

Thats why they test on dynos and the lab.

If you are talking stock cars in a local setting, go ahead, track miles don't cost much either.

I also have been playing with a HHO Generator:

The greatest Inventions have been scoffed by the experts till it works, don't let these posts discourage you. We have seen up to 10% fuel savings on the same trips we take Bi-Weekly. 800 Mile trips same route 11 trips before HHO use, 9 trips with HHO use and we have an average of 9.6% difference with the HHO Generator.

Our Battery has not discharged, as we are only using about 18 amps and the Alternator has been able to keep up with this draw.

We use .6 Gallons of distilled water each trip, no additives to the water.

We are not trying to replace our gas we are only trying to get more MPG with the use of HHO.

I am not sure that all of this is from the HH part I believe the O is also helping the gas burn more efficient. But the results speak for them selves.

I am not selling any designs or parts and have no reason to post this other then to let you know you are not the only person out there that is playing with this.

Last winter I tried to add a little anti freeze to the water. "Not a good idea" Amperage went out of sight and blew the 20 amp fuse and required a complete tear down and cleaning.

The rest of you guys don't respond: I have heard all of the negative and the "It can't work" comments from the experts and this will not stop me and I hope it does not stop the rest of you who are working at getting your heads out of the sand.

I see plenty of it can't work comments with very little to back up their it can't comments but a bunch of technical flim flam and immutable laws of physics jargon. there really isn't any need for it can't work or it can work comment with something to back it up. I wish the mythbusters would get a hold of this and do it and can't seem to find a submit a myth deal on their site though, just another back and forth post your discussion thing like what we have here, which is useless I want to see it done. the guys at metalpresstv seem to have some pretty convincing stuff at youtube but their not finshed with their series of tests. I think they're trying to get the vehicle to run soley on HHO and does not seem to be gasoline/hho hybrid experiment which is what I'm interested in. heck I don't mind spending 100 bucks to put a system together and trying it out, but I don't want to post any results here just to hear the, what about this and that and you didn't do this when they're not willing to try it themselves, nor would I want to keep valuable info like this from anyone. I would dearly love to stick it to big oil in the worst way. I did read this here at one point, our oil(fuel) is coming from a finite source, wouldn't it be a smarter choice to find a way to make the most of it? there's lots of power in a gallon of gas, are we getting the most from it, or is the majority of it being blown out a tail pipe?

You are correct in what you are saying. There are a lot of poeple that like to see there money go out there exhaust pipe. The system works just make sure that you do your homework before you buy the plans or a system that is already made. Good luck. You will be happy. Here is to better MPG.

most of the lost work is in the exhaust. But the systems required to recover the work are expensive. The best way is the use of a turbocharger. HOWEVER, turbos are optimized for horsepower and not fuel savings. That is why the absolute best milage, even better than a stupid hybrid, is a 1.2 liter turbo diesel.

Keep on going with the testing ...WD40 took 39 well oriented tries untill...well you know.

Just as soon as I get the last bugs worked out on my "cold fusion" generator, there won't be any need for gasoline OR water for fuels! Unlimited power in a galon-sized container! That will stop them!

The only known validated use of water to improve engine performance I've ever heard of is water or water/ethanol mix injection used with superchargers/turbochargers at high boost to reduce detonation (re P-51 Mustang fighters in WW II). The effect of the water or water/ethanol mix is to cool the compressed fuel/air mixture to prevent pre-ignition and detonation, not to provide addditional combustion heat as a fuel source would. Modern automobile engines use a detonation (pinging) detector which causes the engine control computer to retard the spark advance until the detonation is eliminated.This allows the engines to run leaner and thus emit fewer unburned hydrocarbons into the catalytic converter and the exhaust. If you designed a system that could uses the detonation detection system to trigger a measured/controlled amount of water into the air flow you could theoretically maintain the same spark advance and thus avoid the loss of engine efficiency caused by retarding the spark. Whether or not this would significantly improve the gas mileage of normally driven cars I can't say. It would have to be tested on a dyno or in well-controlled road conditions.

Since the hydrogen in HOH is already fully oxidized, it is not possible to obtain further energy from combustion. The 'process' is a water heater that evaporates HOH to water vapor.Introducing controlled amounts of water into the intake air CAN increase the thermodynamic efficiency and power output of internal combustion engines--including jet engines.

If one lives in a dry area, the effect can be enough to measure. The cost of the hardware, control systems, freeze proofing needed to make a 'commercial' system reliable enough for at least 50,000 mile durability (required by law now) ,PLUS the necessity for owner/operators to add water and periodically clean out the boiler (this is a big ignored maintenance headache) makes this non-viable from a manufacturers view point.

the water into engines does not increase efficency, it adds mass and cools the air so that the compressor moves more mass of air, then add more fuel, then more output for taking off. Thats the only time water is injected in airplanes.

Keith

The proposed system is not evaporative but dissassociative. Electrical current passed through water will dissassociate the water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The hydrogen is combustible and the oxygen is required for combustion. The theory is sound - I'm just not sure the practice has been economically justified. As fuel prices increase, more obscure ways of enhancing combustion engines become economical. Most of the posters seem to ignore that most of the energy applied to the typical gasoline engine is wasted. If you can use some of the wasted heat / electricity / fuel to increase efficiency, why not?

Ken

If you can use some of the wasted heat / electricity / fuel to increase efficiency, why not?

These devices do not use waste heat. They use what would otherwise be useful power. There is no "unused" electricity: all of it is produced by the alternator, which is 65-70% efficient, and which is driven by an engine which is 25% efficient.

These devices cause a net loss, but the amount of gas generated is so tiny relative to the energy content of the gasoline injected, that the loss is unmeasurable.

The theory is not sound. If it worked, it would be a perpetual motion machine. My other posts explain this in more detail.

Were do you get your info from. The reason a gas engine is only as you say 25% efficient because of the type of fuel and the type of oil you use. Also most alternators that were built after 1998 are a lot more effective then your percent. They are more like 85-95% efficient. They had to become that way to support the new computer systems on these cars. Also your 25% efficient number for car engines is not close either. They are about 50% efficient engine have made some improvement since the 1950. I know you will answer with your normal thing of physics but you are off on that also. You only use the parts of the laws you state to your benefit. You never tell the part of the law that says the system will work. I do believe that there are some cons out there but you are just as bad. You are telling people it will not work becauseI say so and here is why. Did you install a system or try to make one and it failed. So because your did not work none of them do. Just a thought.

Where do you get your info from.

Although I have a little background in chemical engineering, there is actually nothing I've said here that can't be found in a high school chemistry text, a high school physics text, the results of several university studies which can be easily found on the web, and a good book outlining the combustion dynamics of engines. For the last I'd recommend the Bosch Automotive Handbook, which in slightly less than 1000 pages gives you plenty of information to answer questions like this, as well as others. Every automotive engineer has a copy.

Also I get information from my own experiments. I made a lawnmower engine run on hydrogen from electrolysis more than 40 years ago, and even then, as a teen, realized that using the engine to drive the alternator (generator in those days) which feeds the electrolysis, which feeds the engine which drives the alternator... is a crude attempt at a perpetual motion machine. It is not without reason that Stan Meyer was prosecuted for fraud. Perpetual motion machines do not work. If you have a religious belief that these things work that's fine, but in this engineering forum you will need to supply some plausible scientific or engineering explanation for why they might, if you hope to be believed.

Also your 25% efficient number for car engines is not close either. They are about 50% efficient engine have made some improvement since the 1950.

25% is a good working figure averaged over both usage patterns and among engines. Tanagan's figure of 12% is not unusual for the engine of a car being driven in a city -- add enough idling, and efficiency drops to near zero. There is no automobile engine that is 50% efficient, even under the constant high-load conditions that can be seen in a dyno room but not in ordinary driving. Here's a Wikipedia article that may help clear up your confusion. There are hundreds of other sources available which will quote 25% efficiency as being typical. For more accuracy with a specific engine, the best bet is to look at the BSFC graphs for that engine, which show consumption in lb/hp/hr. From those, you can calculate efficiency for yourself. If you do that, and find an engine that runs at 50% efficiency, then report back to us -- many of us could find uses for such an engine. The Prius engine is reported to peak at 38% efficient, and it is the most efficient spark-ignition engine installed in any production car. Even it does not run at 38% efficeincy all the time. If it did then the Prius mileage figures would be higher than they are. Only huge diesels (so big that a person can crawl into a cylinder) reach 50% efficiency.

Also most alternators that were built after 1998 are a lot more effective then your percent. They are more like 85-95% efficient.

BS. Read this Wikipedia article or hundreds of others available on the web for the real numbers. 65-70% is on the generous side. The Wikipedia article says: Efficiency of automotive alternators is limited by fan cooling loss, bearing loss, iron loss, copper loss, and the voltage drop in the diode bridges; at part load, efficiency is between 50-62% depending on the size of alternator, and varies with alternator speed.^[7] In comparison, very small high-performance permanent magnet alternators, such as those used for bicycle lighting systems, achieve an efficiency of around only 60%. .

You made this odd statement:

You only use the parts of the laws you state to your benefit. You never tell the part of the law that says the system will work.

You would need to reference the laws in question for this to make any sense at all. Where did I quote part of a law? If there is "the part of the law that says that the system will work" then you would need to provide a reference to the law and the particular part of the law -- I am not aware of any "law" (or part thereof) that says that perpetual motion machines work.

You are telling people it will not work becauseI say so and here is why.

The syntax and punctuation of this needs a little work. I think you are trying to say I have, by posting here, stated that 1. HHO scams do not work as advertised because I say they do not work and 2. I supplied reasons for my contention that they do not work as advertised.

Re point 1: What I say or wrote has no effect at all on these devices. The reason they don't work has nothing to do with me and everything to do with the devices.

Re point 2: I supplied a few of the reasons for their not working as advertised. That is the kind of thing we do here.

Science enables us to predict what will happen in a chemical reaction. The chemical reaction in question can be run in one direction (dissociation by electrolysis) or the other (recombining by combustion). The energy required for electrolysis is greater than the energy produced by combustion of the products of that electrolysis. If you understand that, then you understand why these devices cannot work. If you do not understand, that then you need to get a high school chemistry book and read it. If you are especially interested in laws, then the law of conservation of energy would be a good one to look into.

I hope that helps to clear up your confusion.

Exactly!

GA!

Stu

That is not what I am say at all. You still do not know or understand what the hydrogen booster systems do. People think that there car is running on hydrogen and that is not true. The systems that people are selling do not turn your car into a pure hydrogen car. It will not make your car run on hydrogen alone. It is a supplement to your gas to make your fuel burn better in your car. It also helps keep the upper end of your vehicle cleaner and run cooler. Heat is one of the factors that makes the gas engine less productive. The other is the type of fuel that is being used. Yes you do use a little more power from your alternator to make the system work. The cells that I am talking about need about 1.87 volts to run and use about 10 amps. That is less then most vehicle computers. This 1.87 volts is more then enough to make enough hydrogen gas to improve the MPG on a four cylinder car or a small six cylinder engine.

As far as my numbers they are not that far off. If you look at a top fuel drag car they are a lot more efficient the 25%. They are more efficient because they do not use unleaded or leaded gas to run. Along with a few other difference's these engines run better because of the type of fuel that is use to run them. We used oil base fuels because we always thought we had enough and it was cheep to get. It is not any more so things have to change.

All I have to say about physic and science. I work on aircraft and there is a machine that flies to today and for along time that should not fly according to physics. The helicopter should not fly by all elements of nature and science. Yet it is does. All I know is this system works when installed correctly and maintained. Yes psychics is good to know and yes I do somethings about it. There is things is physics that can not be proven and are assumed also.

Yes there are some cons out there tell people that your car will run on hydrogen if you install this. That is not true at all but adding hydrogen to your fuel mixture will help it burn better and cleaner. Hydrogen is a clean and very effective way to help improve your MPG until a better way is found. One that everyday people can afford and use.

That is not what I am say at all. You still do not know or understand what the hydrogen booster systems do. People think that there car is running on hydrogen and that is not true. The systems that people are selling do not turn your car into a pure hydrogen car. It will not make your car run on hydrogen alone. It is a supplement to your gas to make your fuel burn better in your car.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I am not aware of anyone who thinks these devices are intended to supply all of the fuel to run an engine. Given that they produce tiny amounts of H2/O2 at a net loss, how could they possibly produce enough to run an engine only on H2/O2? That's silly.

Yes you do use a little more power from your alternator to make the system work.

I think you are catching on. The little more power used is not compensated for by increased combustion energy. In practice, it is off by a factor of 5. In order to break even on an energy balance the electrolysis process would need to be 500% efficient.

All I have to say about physic and science. I work on aircraft and there is a machine that flies to today and for along time that should not fly according to physics. The helicopter should not fly by all elements of nature and science.

You will have a hard time convincing anyone with even the most basic understanding of flight and science that the laws and principles of physics do not apply to flight. As someone who flies, who has taught ground school (in which principles of flight are covered) and who has designed and built wings, I can say with some confidence that there is nothing in flight that cannot be supported by the most basic physics principles.

Heat is one of the factors that makes the gas engine less productive.

You might want to read about engines. You have the concept entirely reversed. Heat is the factor that makes an engine productive. That is why internal combustion engines are call "heat engines."

Yes there are some cons out there tell people that your car will run on hydrogen if you install this.

The vast majority of the cons, however, claim that adding hydrogen to your fuel mixture will help it burn better and cleaner, just as you do. I am not aware of any widely promoted system that claims to run the car entirely on H2 generated on board. The Stan Meyer fraud conviction scared off most of those folks.

I'd love to chat more, but have got to go. If you can produce independent lab test results for your system, then please feel free to do so -- perhaps others will have time to comment.

What law of physics says a heliocopter can't fly? It's OK to have an opinion about hydrogen enhancement, but you gotta stay between the white lines on facts.

The theory of flight look it up. Also is still debated if a airplane is pulled of the ground of lifted of the ground. The person who said it is all about thrust verses weight is correct. If you make make it go fast enough it will fly. If you need help find out about the theory of flight I will help you. I have lost of books on it. Since I am a helicopter and aircraft mechanic.

but not an areonautics engineer

No the laws of flight. You say it should show me I told you were to look it up that it should not fly. It works because it does not because nature say it should. Man made it work not nature. That is what I am say about the helicopter. Not all things work according the the laws on physics and nature.

the helicopter still obey Bernoulli's laws. Look at a maple seed sometime, man didn't make it, nature did.

Actually it does not follow that law, that is what I am saying . You really do not how a helicopter works and why they fly do you. You can use all the laws you want to say why it flies but none cover it exactly. That is why it is so cool that they do. Ok it is your turn to say it does because of this law and 1/2 of this one and 1//4 of that one. You will never find a law that covers it to date.

Now it is time to write some thing to make me feel smart and cool. I can not forget to slam some one. This is to the guy on here like to say so much. Because he is so cool and smart. There I said slam. Now I am smart.

Man who puts hand in pocket feels cocky. Women who flies in airplane up side down has crack up.

Fourth grade bathroom humor does not belong here.

You are correct on the whole commercial part. That is one problem my dad and I are having as we only have till the end of summer to test it as we live near Erie, and hooray for massive snow and cold. But since our unit is easily removable, we may just remove it and the water after each use. We noticed that the current tests heats the water up so fast that cold temps at that point should prove no problem. It would just require refilling it before leaving and installing.

And to whoever said the whole conservation of energy... Yeah, all you are doing is taking electrical energy and through heat (thus energy loss from heat), putting some more into your combustion from another source. I am sure this may kill the battery faster, but until we find out how much it affects the battery life, we are enjoying the extra MPG.

Like I said, we are still in the development process. And to all who emailed or will, I will get you some stuff sent out after myself and my dad get home from work tonight. Everyone else, I will keep this page, or another thread if this one dies, updated as to our findings. If anyone else would like to post findings, it would be great.

These scams have been proved wrong conclusively to my satisfaction. Will that make the perpetrators stop? Apparently not. What, exactly, is the benefit of the sale of these devices? A driver who has pungled up $50 (U.S.) for a gas saving device will be paying very close attention to his driving. He is no longer just engaging in the same old daily commute - he has a new marvelous device to monitor. And by paying close attention to his driving - avoiding jack rabbit starts, anticipating stops and watching his speed closely - he will probably realize a 10% improvement in gas mileage. What is the harm? If it takes some water injection device or magnets taped to the gas line the savings are still there. As long as the devices create this illusion safely we probably have enough regulation in place. The ones that are not safe however, i.e. mucking about with fuel systems, need the full attention of the regulatory bodies.

You would be correct except my dad and mine's findings are over the 10% you speculate. I am sure the human error is involved slightly from what you said, but from 32 MPG to 49MPG is a 53% increase alone. No one on here is going to prevent us from doing this. And all of you saying "it can not happen" or "that is a waste and you are going to destroy your car" comments are wasting space. I am sorry to sound rude with that, and I apologize, but it is bringing nothing to the conversation. Others in here, and around my area we have helping it test it for us, have all reported a MPG increase. That IS what matters. As stated above, further testing is still being done on it from myself and apparently others here. If it ruins your pistons, and car in general, then we will find out someday from testing. But as of now, the system works and has no problems.

And yes, we are not replacing the gas to those who think we are. We are merely putting HHO into our air system to increase efficiency. Nothing more, nothing less.

I believe the message in my post was that you should be free to try whatever you like as long as you are not endangering other motorists.

I apologize for the condenscending remark... I was in a rush while reading it and only skimmed it. Going back I see what you were referring to. Once again, I am sorry. :)

I generally agree with all this. However, when the price is $1200 for $20 worth of hardware, and the scammsters are making millions, it seems unfair to naive but hardworking folks. It's fraud like any other type of fraud, and should be prosecuted.

If a person's mileage improves for a couple months (until old habits return) by 10%, then perhaps 10 gallons worth of gas will be saved. $1200 is a high price to pay for such a savings.

who's charging 1200 dollars? I can see making a few bucks for going out and slapping the materials together for the lazy folks that don't want to go to home depot and pick up the stuff for themselves. I think the ebay auctions charging 50 or 60 bucks is fair, there's a few science project kits out that probably cost more than that even though this kit is for one test and not multiple projects. anyone paying 1200 bucks is definitely a sucker and it would be unfortunate if they were taken in that manner. If you want the FTC to step in to stop the guys charging 1200 bucks great. I don't understand the these systems dont work comments though. Dont work at all? Myself, (bearing in mind I'm NOT willing pay any amount of course) I would do anything to use less gasoline and not just to save money but to save the environment and conserve a finite fuel source, which I'm hearing much of in here. I'm all for some type of crossover method of gasoline slash whatever works (hydrogen possibly) hybrid. I'm more careful of my driving habits with gas at these prices and all I have is the same old motor underneath the hood. My concern is that even if we do find a significant domestic source of oil, "old habits will return", ie the purchase and use of behemoth vehicles, especially when not needed. I live in LA and it makes sick when I see a single person riding in a Hummer or Excursion etc, I don't care whether they can "afford" it or not, they're the ones who should be taxed, they should have to prove they're making proper use of vehicles of that size for work or otherwise. I'm not jealous of thes folks, it ticks me off because they're either downright stupid or don't care about future generations. We should be searching for alternative methods of fuel period across the board. The FTC should be looking at the big oil companies too.

Is there any way of proving them wrong so conclusively that they stop?

I fear not. I wish the FTC would step in aggressively.

I hope that the WPTV tests are redone in a valid fashion. At least then, we'd have a good dyno test on video showing that these devices make no measurable difference. But there will always be many people who will say that the Hydro 4000 is not typical -- in fact we have a member here claiming just that. There will be others who will claim that the dyno test was "rigged" to support the oil company/car manufacturer conspiracy, etc.

A rational explanation of why these devices cannot work is lost completely on what, 95% of the population?

I try to sink these ships when I have time, but it's difficult-- they seem to crop up so fast. Particularly irritating are the one's that show up on the web like this: "Water for gas scams revealed!" ... and they turn out to be more adds for water for gas scams.

On paper the F- 14 had to much weight and too large an engine and would never fly. But it did!

What about the Solar powered Hydrogen Fuel Stations? They create and store fuel making it the same way that these people are in thier cars except they store it.

what do you mean the F14 wouldn't fly. It flies because it has a damn big engine. Its thurst to weight ratio is near unity, in essance it doesn't even need much of a wing to fly.

Solar powered H2 station are a waste. You could take the solar energy from the station, plug in a battery powered car and get 95% of the solar energy to the wheels. When you electricute water you get less than 50% of the energy into the H2 gas and then you either get 35% in an ICE or 80% in a fuel cell, for a net 20% to 40% to the wheels, that is wasteful in any terms.

The weight of the engine is what ON PAPER says it will not fly and be controlable.

Horribly inefficient. Internal Combustion engines average about 12% efficiency while batteries and electric motors are closer to 90% efficiency.

Also figure the size of the solar collectors needed to make enough H to equal the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline, then multiply by the number of vehicles stopping for refills per hour if all cars were H powered. How many acres are to be covered by the collectors? For H to be a viable fuel, cars must be made so expensive as to prevent ordinary people from driving. Guess what, all the H powered cars are just that expensive.

"There's too much drivin' goin' on around heah!" The point of a lot of this "alternative energy" is reducing the number of people driving, so that only the rich and political elites can drive. If people can be kept from moving about easily, they can be more controlled by the ruling elites and politicians. Look at who opposes more development of our own oil resources to lower prices.

This need to get more mpg due to high fuel prices encourages the HHO scams. This leaves the question, "Why doesn't the appropriate agency clamp down on them or at least demand that they prove what they claim?" You can't say an herb will cure a disease, or a particular food, or any treatment. It's illegal. So how can they claim to improve mileage and sell a product without having to prove it actually works?

"The point of a lot of this "alternative energy" is reducing the number of people driving, so that only the rich and political elites can drive. If people can be kept from moving about easily, they can be more controlled by the ruling elites and politicians. Look at who opposes more development of our own oil resources to lower prices."

I hope folks dont think I'm nuts along with you but, with your above comment I think you have real valid point. As far as the "appropriate" agency clamping down, who would you trust? For me, no one. If our government sees this "drones working 24/7"(China, Mexico, Korea) thing working out for other countries, then why not right here at home, that's what worries me. Why should "they" (we, the average middle class folks) have the right to be driving around free about the country. scary stuff. hey folks wake up, our freedoms are getting stripped away moment by moment.

On paper the F- 14 had to much weight and too large an engine and would never fly. But it did!

This is completely, totally, utterly wrong. Aircraft designers do not design planes that on paper, look like they will not fly. If they look like they will not fly on paper, the development goes no further. Planes are not designed by kindergartners. The Tomcat was unique in that much of the usual prototyping was skipped. On paper it looked like it would fly, and sure enough it did. The Wikipedia article is correct on its development, as far as I can remember:

Upon being granted the contract for the F-14, Grumman greatly expanded its Calverton, Long Island, New York facility to test and evaluate the new swing-wing interceptor. Much of the testing was in the air of the Long Island Sound as well as the first few in-flight mishaps, including the first of many compressor stalls and ejections. In order to save time and forestall interference from Secretary McNamara, the Navy skipped the prototype phase and jumped directly to full-scale development; the Air Force took a similar approach with its F-15.^[7].

The F14 went from contract award to flying in just 22 months.

What about the Solar powered Hydrogen Fuel Stations?

Solar-powered hydrogen fuel stations are a completely different concept than generating hydrogen by using power from the engine to be fueled. In both cases, of course H2 is generated. But in the on-board generation scheme the energy content of the H2 cannot equal the energy required to generate it. When the hydrogen is burned the engine and the alternator driven by it produce 18% or so of the energy required to simply sustain the process, let alone producing enough energy to increase mileage.

Even hydrogen added to the intake air stream from an external source simply reduces power in a spark ignition engine. Dyno test prove this and this is in keeping with theory. The H2 displaces air, leaving insufficient air to burn the injected fuel.

Using H2 instead of fuel, in a specially designed engine, works fine, if the hydrogen is generated by something other then the engine itself. If it is generated by the engine itself, then it is a perpetual motion machine attempt, and they fail.

look at the thrust to weight ratios, too small an engine would creat the problems

NO