Great HHO News!

Good to see 'em getting brought to book.

If only these damn scammers would put as much effort into doing real work then maybe we'd all be better off... mind the same could be said of investment bankers.
Sadly it's often those who can ill afford it who get scammed.
Del

BTW:-
Regarding milliamps of pressure...I think my car must have leaked some of these as it wouldn't start this morning.
I stuck the battery on charge and enjoyed a sunny 2mile walk to work (felt quite invigorated...but I blagged a lift back home)
Tried it when I got home I think the battery must have been sufficiently re-inflated as she started up ok.
I shall keep a balloon full of milliamps in the boot in future just to be on the safe side.

Agreed.

That's got to be the fastest 5 stars ever awarded. I'd make it 6 if I could !

I particularly like this comment from a "customer":

"F-150 Pickup went from 11 mpg to 33 mpg — a 179% increase! I was shocked, and very pleased!"

It seems they have a little problem with math (not to mention chemistry/physics/thermo)

Keep up the good fight Ken.

That was good information to read. I think I mentioned to you before, a good friend of mine bought one of those units. (against my advice, which bothered me in itself) I offered to help him install it if he would take it down to the dynamometer and let me do some testing on it. He declined on the offer and after $600 plus dollars has never installed the stupid thing. I've offered the same to some others who have made home made jobbies and no one has taken me up on it as well. Kudos on the thread! I sent the link to a few hopefuls as well.

Ken,

I actually enjoyed the hell out of that (and ringed the five-banger for you myself) ! Clearly enough information to dispel the myth (without having to go into pages of proofs), and a good disertation on what seems to be a complete lack of ethics or regard for the well being of humankind in general. Folks like this, unfortunately, really are parasites and they've been around forever. Seems like the market for snake oil never dries up !

Three cheers, Ken! I tried to say the same thing awhile back and started the longest thread I've ever seen here. You don't have to be an engineer or scientist to know that HHO is a scam, just have a few brain cells that actually work!

I saw HHO in the header and was scrolling past, then I noticed the author. Well done Ken.

With all due respect to all the Engineers on board...

I am no engineer but I grew up in a family of Engineers... mostly in Ship Building.

I can't help but notice a sort of cult personality developing here...

Sorry to be throwing water on your fire by asking the following questions:

1. Why generalize all HHO experimenters as scammers?...

2. We all know for a fact that it takes more energy to split water in order to come up with Hydrogen with an equivalent BTU or Volume in relation to Gasoline or Petrol... but Why are we not asking how much force is obtained from 1 compressed 1cc of hydroxy in comparison to a 1 cc of compressed (14.7:1) mixture of Petrol and ambient air?

3. We all know for a fact that oxyhydrogen in gas form has a burning speed of about Mach 7 per second and Hydrogen alone burns at Mach 3 per second... with the lesser BTU content... does it not compensate the energy load output with it's fast or quick flame or explosive speed?

In the light of the above,

4. Can you not derive any power gains at all by mixing 1 part of hydroxy gas with 95 parts of a stoichiometric AFR @ (14.7:1)... Has anyone tried this with a confined cylinder or chamber and ignite it and measure actual energy output?

It's easy to bank on dogma... but to be able to see or prove that the world is round (so to speak) may take more expedition fundings.

I respect your stand against hhoers' scammers.. but I believe that - generalization should be avoided.

The move to make hho technology open source is originally intended for personal security reasons.

But making it open into the field is like feeding diamonds or pearls to the pigs.

Many have taken advantage of little knowledge and made things more dangerous to ones' self and others.

HHO or the pursuit of hho is a real science and it needs concrete deductive, scientific and systematic approach in understanding it further... explore it's limits, potentials and possibilities.

Wasn't it Einstein who said that "Imagination is more important"...

For what is the concept of an atom, electrons or energy but a product of the imagination which later evolved into a theory, wherein the theory is tested for validity, if it confirms and affirms without contradiction to other natural scientific laws, then it will hold water.

Everything is relative...

Therefore, what you've read in your science books the classroom is not entirely a dogma, and everything outside it is not necessarily pseudo science.

Magic is merely an illusion and behind every Magic trick is a scientific explanation.

With regards to a positive Dyno Test result... you might want to see "The Fast and the Curious"... dyno testing a 1300cc car with an hho electrolyzer... before and after results. It's video documented in youtube. Done by an experimenter... not a scammer.

With much Regards,

JUST ANOTHER DOER

This subject has been covered to DEATH here on CR4 and other scientific and engineering forums, labs, independent tests, government investigations, etc, hence the short answers and generalisations. I dread to think how many hundreds of hours have been spent trying to explain and educate people on the subject, including the scams the scammers and the backyard inventors who just keep making the same mistakes over and over again thinking they have discovered the next great energy source discovery.

Have a look at the countless pages on CR4 where myself and others go thru the details in great detail. The evidence, math, explanations, links and verification is all there for you to look at.

Please don't mention hydroxy or "verification by youtube video". See previous explanations on CR4 FIRST as your questions have likely already been answered.

Good job Ken. I hope people will honestly take more time to research real credible avenues available that are available on the internet other than You-tube. More time spent learning thoroughly than a lot of "seems right to me" kind of "learning".

Basic Physics and chemistry would be a good start!

Here's also a good place to start some learning:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hph.html

With regards to HHO, I have recently fitted an HHO unit to a fleet operater's vehicle (six cylinder sedan).
This vehicle was tested at an independent local government emission testing station before the unit was fitted then driven by the operator for 1900km at which time it was retested at the same test station, the results are:
NOx reduced 74.12%
CO2 reduced 15.43%
Now this is the one I want to know why PM-LLSP (particulate mater) increased 120.6%
Opacity Av(%)reduced 97.89%
Opacity Max(%) reduced 93.26%
Power dropped 1.41%
Torque dropped 4.98%
Fuel economy increased by 34.08%
These are not my figures they are all independent. So something seems to be working.

Grams/kilometer

NOX 0.456 reduced to 0.118
C02 447.9 reduced to 378.8
PM-LLSP 0.403 increased to 0.889
Opacity Av(%) 2.707 reduced to 0.057
Opacity Max(%) 9.758 reduced to 0.658
Power 99.437kW reduced to 98.039 Torque 298.453 Nm@Rear Wheels reduced to 283.599 Nm

The Vehicle is a 6cyl V6 3.6L fuel injected gas engine(91 octane).
The emission test was a DT80.
Given that the opacity is so much clearer the PM figure seems off.
That's why I believe it could be water vapour the test is picking up, in any respect the figures seem to be pretty good to me. Any comments welcome, good or bad.

The test appears invalid, at least as a measure of the effectiveness of the HHO installation. The dyno techs should have known better than to continue the test when they saw the high opacity figure.

The DT80 is a test for diesel trucks, not gasoline passenger cars (and thus the particulate measurements). The fact that the "before" test showed over 9% opacity would be an immediate indicator that the car was not operating correctly. A normal car will show opacity figures like the "after" figures. Diesels have much higher opacity values.

For a valid test of the HHO device, you must first have a car that is functioning correctly. Otherwise there is no way of knowing what you are measuring: variability in a failing car, or an effect of the HHO device.

For precise fuel efficiency measurement, government agencies use CO2 emissions, which are a direct indication of how much fuel is being burned. Thus, if the differences in CO2 are 15%, the difference in fuel consumption is also 15%. (Who knows where they came up with the 34% fuel economy increase -- the raw data does not support that.) But, of course, even this difference is not valid (in your case) for the reason mentioned above, and because you seem to be saying that one test was done 1900 km away from the other. The tests must (obviously) be done on the same day, and must be done in a,b, a,b, a,b, fashion to get a feel for variability as an indication of a valid test.

Popular Mechanics' test, which showed no effect at all using precise fuel flow measurement equipment, is an excellent model to follow if you do not have access to a good dyno and good dyno technicians. Holding a speed, you can quickly go from "with" to "without" several times to prove to yourself that the device has no beneficial function, just as the science would predict: the amount of HHO produced is simply to small to have any measurable effect. If you install such a large unit that the extra load on the alternator reduces performance dramatically, then the issues of the energy value of the hydrogen being a small percentage of the energy use to create the hydrogen start to show up: fuel efficiency drops, performance drops every so slightly, etc.

Once you get this car fixed so it does not smoke with the HHO unit turned off, then try running the tests again, but be sure to do them all in one dyno session. Be sure to monitor differences in CO2, and be sure to protest if they claim a different fuel economy change than shown by the difference in CO2 -- the percentage differences should be identical.

Thanks for the reply Ken.

You are right the DT80 is a diesel test, poor choice of words on my part. The test station is a DT80 test station but they also do Petrol (gas) powered vehicles. I'm more then happy to email the actual report to you.

The vehicle in question was in good operating condition 9500 kilometers on the clock.

The reason for the test's being so far apart was that I wanted a real time test in normal driving conditions by the same driver to see what the changes might be (good or bad). I made no promises or claims of 300% increase in fuel economy or any other BS you see on the net. In fact the operator is more interested in emmission redutions, we just wanted to see what happened.

This vehicles fuel use and mileage has been monitored from day 1. So the operator knows exactly how much fuel consumption is going on.

Fuel consumption before the unit was fitted 12.09 Ltr/100, 8.27 Kpl.

After the unit was fitted 7.97 Ltr/100, 12.54Kpl

So yes something has changed and so have the emissions. Again these are not my numbers but come from the operator.

Just for a bit more info read the NASA report called:

Dated May 1977.

How pure hydrogen effects or when supplemented in regards to an IC engine, has been known for some time.There are now obviously a few manufacturers that are anticipating that an infrastructure will be developed in the somewhat near future and continue to develop hydrogen run cars. I'm not that sold on that idea personally. This particular study piece gets passed around a lot. I noticed this copy was derived from the base here in Abq. Most often people assume that a methanol reformer is an HHO device. Far from it. Not to mention there is quite a bit of energy that goes into one in the first place that is back to the original issue of these HHO devices. Here's one definition that seems to be a good description from my remembrance of it.

A mixture of water and methanol with a molar concentration ratio (water:methanol) of 1.3 - 1.5 is pressurized to approximately 20 bar, vaporized and heated to a temperature of 250 - 280 °C. The hydrogen that is created is separated through the use of a hydrogen-permeable membrane made of a palladium and silver alloy.

A methanol reformer is a device used in chemical engineering, especially in the area of fuel cell technology, which can produce pure hydrogen gas and carbon dioxide by reacting a methanol and water (steam) mixture.

Methanol is transformed into hydrogen and carbon dioxide by pressure and heat and interaction with a catalyst.

Here is another site that indicates a better arrangement for fuel cell development efficiencies and use related: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050823005670&newsLang=en

You will find it helpful to actually read this report, rather than simply referring to it (without reading it) as almost every HHO scammer does. 1. Referring to it as support for HHO boosters "working" makes you appear to be yet another scammer, simply because you are doing the same things the scammers do. 2. Even if you are not a scammer, using the report to support HHO schemes makes you appear to be an idiot* incapable of reading the report. If you simply read the report while thinking, you will see that using it as support for HHO scams is profoundly idiotic, because the thing that the report most clearly shows is that hydrogen injection even from a bottle does not provide the performance increases claimed by the frauds.

The NASA report did not have anything to do with products of electrolysis in which the energy for electrolysis is supplied by the same engine (therefore using additional fuel to convert the energy to supply the electrolysis) that is being fed the output of that electrolysis. (This perpetual motion aspect is the reason that the over-unity crowd and the HHO crowd get along together so well, and is the reason that Dennis Lee, first prosecuted for fraud in the over-unity world is now being prosecuted for fraud in the HHO world.)

The NASA study had to do with, at the most basic, adding hydrogen (from an outside source) to an otherwise extraordinarily lean engine. As any nitwit would expect, replacing the missing fuel with hydrogen made the engine run better than without the hydrogen. There have been additional studies that indicate that hydrogen from an outside source can reduce emissions in homogeneous charge engines, in diesels, etc, but at very high cost, and there is no study that suggests that hydrogen injection is a currently viable technology for cleaning up emissions to legal limits without doing essentially all the things we already do to reduce emissions. (The emission level in this 1977 study are orders of magnitude higher than today's emission levels.) Obviously, if we could revert to the crude engines we use to operate, and reduce complexity by simply injecting hydrogen instead of using fuel injection, precise closed-loop control, etc, then the auto manufacturers would be doing it -- they are all about doing things as cheaply as possible. But the study shows that such an approach would not come close to working.

Your referenced study compared the effects of bottled hydrogen with hydrogen generated by an onboard reformer. That onboard reformer used methanol as the fuel input, and used waste heat to do the reforming. This avoids the obvious thermodynamic flaw of using an alternator driven by the engine, thereby increasing its fuel consumption. Also, methanol is already a high energy fuel, so little energy is required to reform it.

The NASA report, if read for meaning, completely refutes the typical HHO scammer claims. It shows that (even ignoring the source of hydrogen) 1. the amounts of hydrogen produced by electrolysis in HHO "boosters" have no measurable effect. To get significant** effects, the amount of hydrogen injected has to be many many times higher that that produced by HHO generators (and again, even then, the H2 is from a bottle, not generated by using up the car's fuel). You can see my other CR4 posts re the amount of hydrogen generated by the most productive HHO generators, and then compare that to the amounts used in the study. I am making the assumption that you can do arithmetic. You'll find that .231 kg per hour is about 43 liters per minute -- but feel free to check my math if you want. As you may know, 1.5 liters of HHO per minute is typical, and 2/3 of that is hydrogen (the only part with any usable energy), so in rough terms, the NASA study used about 40 times as much hydrogen, and even at that rate it had no beneficial effect on fuel efficiency -- which amazing as it may seem to you, is exactly what the science would predict.

So the NASA report says that with hydrogen amounts far higher than HHO generators produce, and which is produced without the obvious and essential flaw in the HHO concept (the over unity principal: there is no debate over the fact that hydrogen requires more energy to create via electrolysis than you can get out of it by burning it -- claiming other wise is the same logic as claiming perpetual motion machines work) still and even then "the actual minimum energy consumption was the same for gasoline and hydrogen/gasoline"

The report you reference clearly and unequivocally shows that HHO injection does not produce the performance improvements the scammers claim.

Obama is correct that science needs to be restored to its rightful place. Without scientific thinking we end up with all sorts of problems: the incredibly large financial scams that have rocked the world's economy being an obvious example. One can look at the top five big scams that have lead to the economic collapse and can see that with clear thinking, most would have been obvious -- most were "too good to be true".

* If in fact you really are an idiot, please accept my apologies, it is not my intent to criticize your limitations. I am simply saying that most people do not want to appear to be completely ill-informed. Your presenting this as proof that HHO scams works simply makes it appear that you are incapable of understanding the report, which is actually quite basic and easy to read in comparison to many. Either that, or it makes you appear to be a crook.

** For pseudo science types "significant" means "a lot". "Significant" in scientific studies actually means just enough to be able to say that the variable has a discernible effect.

Thanks naturalextraction for your constructive comments.

Now for Blink. I am neither a scammer or an idiot.

I put my figures up for general comment not abuse, no matter what you might think or say I feel that the results are very good with reduction in emission and an increase in fuel economy.

If I was a scammer as you so politely put it I would be trying to sell something, I'm not. Nowhere on this forum I'm I directing anyone to any other site (unlike yourself) I'm not claiming to save the world, to cure cancer or give you a set of stake knives.

After looking at you web site I'm sure you must have investors knocking you door down to hand you $100,000 for a vehicle that does not exist (yet). Your Simplicate page looks like a 5 year old has drawn it. I think I could go out and buy a tandum bicycle put an electric motor on it, some training wheels and pull a rain coat over my head and still get my girlfriend to put her legs round me (my wife might object). What a way to advertise your POC.

There is nothing sadder than an armchair general that has an opinion on everything and no qualifications in anything, I'm sure you must be very happy with your own opinion on everything. I'm just sorry that us lesser beings bug so much.

This is my last post on this forum.

This is my last post on this forum.

I'm sorry. Don't let me scare you away.

I worked, right out of college, for an invention marketing fraud who made millions at the expense of good ordinary people, some of whom invested very large portions of life savings on their ideas, based on the promises of the invention marketing firm that their invention could make them a great amount of money. Although I was bright kid, it was not until I worked inside the firm (I was a freelancer at first) that I saw how it worked. The FTC has put a few of these out of business, but others can absorb the costs of multi-million dollar fines and keep on going, unimpeded.

Having helped to bilk people out of their hard-earned money, when I see similar scams (such as the HHO scam, that inarguably, has been promoted by famous frauds -- some solidly in the HHO world, i.e Stanley Meyer, and others who have been convicted of fraud in the "over unity" world, but not yet convicted of fraud in the HHO world specifically) I feel that I should do something to make amends -- to help others avoid getting fleeced. I have a very small sphere of influence, but by virtue of years of experience in the automotive world, loads of experience with dynamometer testing, some education in chemical engineering, and the simple fact that I remain interested in physics (I was my physics teacher's "best student in twenty years" he said) this is an area in which I can help people avoid getting fleeced.

There are plenty of HHO experimenters who are not frauds (who believe, despite the science, that HHO will gain them something) and for that reason, I did not include you in the fraud or scammer category -- I have no way of knowing what your motives for posting here are.

The FTC is bringing suit against Dennis Lee's HHO operation, and is expected to bring suit against some of the other large operators. (Lee claims to have "won" the suit, although I cannot find evidence of that – other than the peswiki article which is hard to consider evidence of anything -- and I spoke with the FTC several weeks after his peswiki announcement, at which time the suit was continuing.)

It has been many, many years (42 years, I'd guess) since I played with HHO, running lawnmower engines on hydrogen, etc. -- all good parlor tricks, I thought. But even then, being a precocious youth, I knew enough of physics and the most basic chemistry to see the energy from burning hydrogen is less that the energy that goes into electrolyzing the water. (I used an old battery charger as my power supply.) I have since found that it makes no difference how the electrolysis is accomplished (pulsed at any frequency and voltage, AC, DC, etc. etc.) Further, the NASA report showed (many years ago) as have many others, that there is no magical effect of H2 injection -- it does exactly what science would predict: in quantities 30 more time higher than HHO units produce, it can help a lean engine run correctly, but doesn't not improve energy efficiency. Studies, and simple high school chemistry also show that HHO also has no magic properties.

So, 1. without any real evidence that HHO works (such as an EPA test) and loads of evidence that it does not (the well-done Popular Mechanics test, for example), and 2. no theoretical reason that it should work (don't take my word for this, read what the preeminent combustion engineers and scientists have said) commercial HHO promotion is in my view a scam that I should fight against, if I have a moral compass. Private experimenters can, of course, do as they will, and should not be accused of being scammers.

Now for Mr Fry. I am neither a scammer or an idiot.

And, of course, I did not accuse you of being either. I simply cautioned you about appearances. (As another example: Regarding any perpetual motion scheme -- if you claim to have an "over-unity device" you will appear, on an engineering site, to be a scammer or ill-informed. On over-unity sites, however, you will appear to be a hero.)

I went out of my way to apologize to you if you really are an idiot. And of course, you are correct, you are not offering HHO devices for sale on this website, nor did I claim that you were.

My rather lengthy post was to show that the NASA report that you appeared to be providing as evidence that HHO boosting works as claimed by the scammers (and here, I don't mean you -- I mean convicted scammers such as Stanley Meyer) indicates that these schemes should not work. Perhaps you were intending to provide it as evidence, which it is, that HHO devices do not work as advertised. Who knows?

Perhaps your own HHO device works just fine, in your opinion. Odd, then, that you would provide the NASA report (which is referenced not just by you, but by scammers as well) as evidence that your device cannot work. Maybe you were only trying to show both sides of the issue.

In any case, I appreciate your feedback on my site.

There is nothing sadder than an armchair general...

As you go on in life, you will find many things sadder. I've had friends die, loved ones undergo massive surgery... I've even witnessed a decapitation. Unless you lead a very charmed life, you will probably see things even sadder than my posts -- which I have to say, do tend to ramble on far too long. If I had more time, I could edit them down to something more readable.

Just so you feel welcome here, I will refrain from commenting on your posts -- and in fact, I have said all I can say about HHO, in one place or another, so I am not planning to make a lot of additional posts on the subject -- unless someone takes me up on my offer of arranging legitimate testing and an improvement can be demonstrated -- it would be nice to write something positive, for a change. Further, you will find some people here who are more supportive of over-unity devices and HHO boosters than I am: there is someone in another thread, for instance, who claims a 50x improvement in HHO production, which would suggest 2500% efficiency, assuming 50% efficiency as the baseline (which is achievable with a fairly carefully-constructed unit). He also claims to have invented the I-pod (eight years before Apple) and cures for cancer and other diseases.

If you are the one who has unlocked the secret of HHO that has eluded others since the first patent in the 1930's (sadly, a fraud), then I'd suggest going to the manufacturers with your test results immediately. A 30% improvement in fuel efficiency from a device which can be produced for $10 per car in quantity is worth multiple billions.

But definitely don't let me scare you away: there are many hundreds of other CR4 members. Sorry you found my post offensive.

Hi Ken,

I would like to react on this... its a free world anyway...

I don't know to whom you were directing this thread, but that NASA report is interesting and I also did post it in one of my blogs; I think I did... http://hydrogenperformance.blogspot.com

I posted it there not to promote scammers but to enlighten the public that Hydrogen in your engine will not cause harm to the engine since it was the issue of concern among my sphere of influence. (Sorry if it sounded like it supports Scammers... )

I posted it as a reference ... it is interesting because it highlights the good effects of hydrogen injection like cooler engine operational temperature and it's zero emissions.

(Being beneficial is relative.)

Of course NASA used hydrogen from a bottle - not compromising any engine load whatsoever since it is outside the equation. So it is not reducing the engine load.

I dont know about fraudulent claims about increase in performance... since these cheap promotional gimick materials dont interest me. In my experience, there is no significant performance increase if the alternator is used to electrolyze hydroxy. The increase in performance can only be felt in the lower power band which is about 1500 to 2000 rpm range at cruising speeds at 5th gear, it can also be felt in the lower gears but not much.... you need to be a race car driver to feel the difference... the Dyno will show 1 or 2 % but dyno tests will tell you this is insignificant figures.

However, since you mentioned a methanol reformer was used, I guess this article wasnt directed to me... I am not interested with any form of petrol whether bio or not... It is only the usable effects obtaineable from water that interests me.

Forget hydrogen for a while... lets talk about fecundated water into the airstream going into the combustion chambers. Have you seen the effect of pouring water over a frying pan with boiling oil?... the effect can be catastrophic. The energy is merely released from another state or level.

With a bubbler before the air stream... hho and ambient air is sucked by the vacuum pressure... the bubblers' water level is excited causing some fecundation to happen, hho with ambient air and liquid water particles are also sucked at the same time.

In my actual experience... with just the bubbler functioning without HHO - some mileage gain can still be achieved... but with HHO induced at the same time, the emission goes lower.

I tried leaning for some time but my HC went higher... perhaps it's NOX even with HHO... then I reverted to the right AFR... even a slightly richer AFR is perfect with Hydroxy... The emission results show figures complying to EURO 2 standards. CO emissions in the tune of 0.19% or 0.11% is normal.... but not for a 30 year old car or an 18 year old car.

I am not saying we should support all these HHO stuff and all but I am merely sharing what I have actually witnessed personally. I didnt buy any HHO stuff in the internet and I did use any plans or designs from thsoe free DIY plans. I made my own, tried different configurations, made my own conclussions. The stuff I have and play with are my own and it may show different results from the others since my installation and mounting approaches are not the same. I am also using a different electrolyte solution which is also not the same. I am also using my own installation protocol which is not yet written. There are rules of thumb in this stuff... and there is only a few guys who are more familiar with it that I know of.

Making an efficient electrolyzer is one thing... but how it's installed is another. How you are inducing it into the system is another... how your water behave is another... so it's not just electrolysis per se, there is a little catalysis in the process. But the rest of the HHO followers only end up where they are led. I dont and I have no intentions of travelling their path. As the EBN group told me... I am approaching this in a different path. I believe there is a science here but the science presented by non-engineers are less likely to appeal with me. However, the dogmatic views of the scientific circle is likely to be a biased attitude. It's like the defendant has been pressumed guilty before trial.

Just my penny worth of thoughts.

I respect your opinion because you are in the industry and you understand that all these laws govern and should play interactively in order for a system to become dynamically efficient... which is apparent in your works like your 3-wheeler X-price Racer. You know about efficiency and it is good to discuss or brainstorm this stuff with you.

I just hope you are not an agent doing a demolition campaign on hydrogen on demand systems as a whole. I get the impression that you are a sincere vigilante against scammers, I appreciate your presence. You are helping weed out the crop so to speak.

Best Regards,

ehnriko

.. hho and ambient air is sucked by the vacuum pressure... the bubblers' water level is excited causing some fecundation to happen, hho with ambient air and liquid water particles are also sucked at the same time.

Never heard the word fecundation or fecundate used in this manner. It simply is incorrect usage to describe what we think you mean.

Please understand there is a lot more in relation to the over all physics and chemistry behind all of this that must be learned appropriately, not without entirety or reading what we want to believe without total congruity. There are real science applications to provide indisputable results. NON to my knowledge, from a scientific, well documented, with repeatable positive end results, has been proven that these have any substantial gain what so ever in a ICE. I applaud your desires to help our environment, keep learning but learn what has been proven from at least, to start, 500 years of research and development, categorically and undisputed.

FYI - Fecundation is defined as, a noun: creation by the physical union of male and female gametes; of sperm and ova in an animal or pollen and ovule in a plant.

or defined: fecundation - making fertile as by applying fertilizer or manure.

OR Fundicate –verb (used with object), -dat⋅ed, -dat⋅ing.

As I stated in this thread :

I will humbly admit, I was duped by this fad (not too awfully long ago).

A friend of mine convinced me to build a bunch of test HHO generators. It's really fun stuff (as long as its not going into a automobile), Filling balloons, bags, and just about anything that will hold air, causing very nice explosions. It's also fun to build a water powered (really electrically powered) cutting torch(again, more fun than useful).

When we had built some "high output" units, he began installing them into various vehicles. The first test vehicle was a suburban... I went on a test ride with him, everything seemed to run fine. (I've never put one into my personal vehicles, and now never will). At first, soon after the first experiment was finished road testing, my "buddy" reported some amazing numbers to me, (this friend of mine has always been semi-technical, and mostly trustworthy). I believed him.

This is where I failed... I did not do the experiment myself, and took his "findings" to the bank. For a period of about 2-3 months he had me convinced, and because i had a good deal of trust with him (and very little spare time myself) i failed to second check the experiment. To this day, I'm not sure how it happened, maybe there were other fuel additives at work, maybe the "baseline readings" were skewed, maybe the "findings" were flat out fraudulent. I do know that my "friend" seemed genuinely convinced that what he was telling me was "fact". I don't know what it was, but the wool was definitely over my own eyes.

He is a very convincing guy, when "selling" his "technology". He actually had many people duped by his "great findings". He was able to convince UPS, Snap-On, and a few other companies buy into the scam.. I suppose I really wanted to believe it could work, despite science/fact. The real "sales pitch" was the small lawnmower engine he had in his shop, which was fitted with a large unit. He was able to run the engine (barely, at idol) apparently with no gasoline. This is a convincing site to see.

In the end, I don't regret playing with the technology, it is quite a fun hobby/"waste of time". What i do regret, is not following through with performing the drive testing myself, and believing what i saw, and what was reported to me as a "finding".

I was more into the unit design, and electronics, and was too reluctant to put one in my own vehicle, (phew, that was close). All in all, I have learned the hard way that HHO is a scam, I will Admit it, I was a fool, and even promoted HHO for a brief period, boy do i feel stupid now.

My apologies for promoting such a scam on CR4 in the past.

Did you follow up with his sales (I'm assuming he got them sold) to UPS and Snap On?? I would be curious as to how that ended up. We have a Snap On dealer here who quit his route to pursue selling the units from a company out of Tennessee. He's been at if for about a year now and is still selling them. I'm trying to convince him to put his best performing unit with what numbers he's claiming to the dyno. This was last month and is still avoiding me. But I WILL pin him down as he wants to promot in my news paper. We'll see.

He Ended up going into business with it. I haven't spoken with him about it recently, but to the best of my knowledge he has lost it due to the downturn of the economy. I never heard anything more about UPS/Snap-on, other than some efficiency numbers he spouted when he first got the business with them. The funny thing is, he seems to really believe the stuff, even when he can't seem to give me the proof to support his claims.

What turned me away was when i gave him the opportunity to use the Lab to get the "proof" free of charge, he did not take me up on the offer.(of course)

Ah! Another one doesn't bite! Well I'm still pushing my guy on this. I've commented in similar threads of others I've met and have offered the same to no avail. Now I'm really curious to test one of these.

The unit made by Popular Mechanics is much better built than most, and is designed to be portable. I've considered giving them a call to see if I can borrow it. I've built electrolysis units over the years, mainly for fun with the kids, but if any of my friends saw me building one of these things, they'd think I'd gone off the deep end, so it would be nice to have one already built... and I'd sneak it into my car at night. I'd ask them to ship it in a plain brown wrapper, of course. I doubt that I'll have the time, but if you are interested, it might be worth giving them a call.

I think I have some one at our testing shop who would put it on their car. We have a little budget to actually (and I cringe) pay for it if we have to. I would really like to have an extensive test done on these things. I have a big issue of my paper to come out in May that this would be great to have in it. It's our largest circulated issue. Also I'll have a web site publication up soon regarding science that this also would be a great thing to have in there. SO it might be worth the dollars spent. Thanks for the tip.

YOUR quote..."I have offered to test these devices with a real dynamometer and fuel flow measuring equipment, but no one has taken me up on the offer." your quote...

does your offer still stand?

Hi Ben,

Yes it still stands. I emailed you re truck testing, which is a little harder than car testing, because there are fewer dynamometers which will accomodate a truck, but I think we can work something out, even if it means road testing under conditions that CR4 members will accept as valid.

Do It!

Hello Blink. I understand your stance on the whole HHO thing. You oppose the use of HHO. Does that make you the best persont to test it? I read your posts and was stunned at the duplicity of your statements.

You state that you have offered to test these systems. I thought Ben78 was supplying you with one to test and you said you were too busy?

I am aware of the laws of physics and I am also aware of the improved fuel economy by using a small amount of HHO. I have personally demonstrated the effect to multiple engineer types. I assume your community would prefer that I present my results in a manner that supports thermodynamics. I am unable to do that. I am also unable to show dyno results at this moment which led to the testing link you posted.

I am sure that your standing at CR4 is more than voluntary!

I am also quite sure that you have had my profile removed because I disagree with you. I read the rules for this site and never broke the rules warranting removal of my profile and ability to respond to posts. The only thing I am guilty of is disagreeing with you and your "Theories".

My work relies on good testing to verify results to the best of my abilities. I do not have access to a lot of test equipment. Mileage is taken from fill-up.

I am sure this profile will be removed as quickly as the rest of them were.

I will post under this name until you or your cohorts remove my ability to respond to posts. My guess is that it will be removed after this post and you will remove the post before anyone else can read it. More power to you. I do not plan on going away quietly. When my results are in with dyno testing and I have charts to show I will post here for those who want to know the TRUTH. I immagine you will be busy trying to cover your tracks in the meantime so you don't look so bad when you cannot refute the evidence, although I am sure you will try.

Maybe the "GURU" of HHO should be someone who has RESULTS? You have tried to use HHO yourself and failed, so how does that make YOU an authority?

Like I have said many times before; There are a million ways to do HHO wrong, but there is only a couple of ways to do it right.

As you have found out, CR4 may not be the best forum for you as it is an engineering forum populated by engineers and scientists and pseudoscience without overwhelming proof is frowned upon (for obvious reasons).

Have you tried other forums such as the HHO forums (Keelynet perhaps), I can almost guarantee that they will allow you to post rather than trying to suppress your ideas. Either that or get proper test results to help back up your claims. If you don't know how to get proper results then look thru the numerous threads on CR4 on HHO, MPG boosting devices, etc where myself and others clearly explain how to perform verifiable tests (both by yourself and thru third parties). Also covered is ohms law and pulse wave theory.

Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence after all, especially when the claims dispute known and well proven laws (and have been used in previous energy scams).

Good luck.

"I am also quite sure that you have had my profile removed because I disagree with you."

I can assure you that Blink does not have the power to do that.

"I am sure that your standing at CR4 is more than voluntary!"

What the hell are you talking about? Blink is just a member like the rest of us. Why are you HHO people so paranoid?