A gift for HHO Skeptics!

[wagon]

A good thread!

I had a bloke in my workshop a few years ago, who made the 'cells' for these stupid HHO arrangements. As a test, I hooked up my oscilloscope to the injectors and did a before & after injector pulse width measurement. Surprising to him, the pulse width was fatter with his POS HHO device running! I never saw him again.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

The good old Commonwealth of Virginia passed a law that requires any HHO installation to pass the same emissions standards as the vehicle did when new. Try that with one of those vehicles that you "fool" into running leaner than it was designed to do, which makes the NOX emissions skyrocket.

Big fine if you do the installation and do not get it tested and not worth it when you get no better mileage.

I have $1000 for anyone who can make my Fiesta get 20% better mileage with a HHO installation that passes the same emissions test the car did when new. It's a 2011 model that has averaged just under 46 MPG for the last 4k plus miles.

Bring it on. We can both lay our 1 grand on the table and if you fail I keep your cash. If you succeed then you can keep my cash. You need to get the Fiesta up to 55 MPG.

regards
Mech

Forget the emissions testing requirement and the requirement to install it on your car. Just make it a simple test of efficiency gain within the resolution of the measuring instruments. All of your logic points to the fact that there should be an efficiency LOSS. It should not matter weather the engine is a late model or a carburetor or a diesel. It shouldn't matter if it is in a vehicle or on a dyno.

Since science is in your favor, why don't you slide the odds to make the HHO guys more interested. How about 10:1? You put down 10 grand in US dollars and he puts down 1000. You KNOW you are going to win right? To be exact, you can put up a million dollars and KNOW science has your back, correct?

Attract the flies then swat them down.

1000 dollars is chicken feed. It attracts chickens - not flies.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...but, wait, there's MORE!

The famous psychologist, Dr. B. F. Skinner, recommended using PIGEONS as "guidance control" for bombs and the War Department actually funded him during WWII...up until the Manhatten Project had been proven to work! Later, the USN tried to resurrect the idea, but gave up when electronics proved better.

For an even more strange use of birds in warfare look at operation Blue Peacock. The plan was to use chickens to keep the nuclear land mine warm enough to work.

WEIRD WARFARE 1 - YouTube

[wickydude]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Since science is in your favor, why don't you slide the odds to make the HHO guys more interested. How about 10:1? You put down 10 grand in US dollars and he puts down 1000. You KNOW you are going to win right? To be exact, you can put up a million dollars and KNOW science has your back, correct?

Attract the flies then swat them down.

1000 dollars is chicken feed. It attracts chickens - not flies.

Somebody already did offer a million dollars.
Naturally, nobody really wanted to take up the challenge....
The one million dollar HHO challenge

There's some serious debunking on that site too. Nice read.
But, since unicorns are immortal, they will keep coming back.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by wickydude

Somebody already did offer a million dollars.
Naturally, nobody really wanted to take up the challenge....
The one million dollar HHO challenge

There's some serious debunking on that site too. Nice read.
But, since unicorns are immortal, they will keep coming back.

I have had a back and forth with the site creator about all the loop holes he expects the challengers to jump through. I pointed out that the level of development and scrutiny the device would need would mean the million dollars would result in a loss in ROI ( return on investment) if the challenge was a goal. A company with a real product would not take the challenge due to the frivolous requirements. The market share would result in tremendous ROI. He pretty much said the rewriting of science would result in the Nobel Peace Prize paying you a million dollars and then the market would reward you with more. They never had a million dollars in escrow. He would not be able to pay.

I asked him to simplify the challenge to a POSITIVE gain - no matter how small. Forget the longevity testing and the emission requirements. The bottom line is, can the idea of hydrogen augmentation from on board electrolysis provide any sort of fuel savings. Yes, I know he is trying to stop the scammers. However, he says that HHO absolutely cannot work. As do most of the denizens of this forum. If that is the case, make it the first major step to test efficiency, and not some sideshow requirements for reliability and emissions. Those can be added later as an engineering exercise. There is enough simple instrumentation and procedure to perform accurate tests of efficiency.

Of course, there was the issue of credibility. I pointed out that errors on his site as well as a lack of depth showed him to have nothing more than a Wiki education. I asked him about combustion efficiency, thermal efficiency and mechanical efficiency and all he could do was send links to "prove his point" when the links themselves were supportive of my position. It was obvious his understanding of the subject was minimal. My position you ask? My position is that there are enough loop holes in combustion theory to take advantage of a small amount of HHO and use it to a positive gain in efficiency. No, you cannot run your car on water. No, you will not double your mileage. But, you can see measurable gains under specific circumstances where simple logic tells you there should be a loss. I asked him about combustion theory - combustion precursors, radicals and their effect on long chain hydrocarbons in a high enthalpy situation. I pointed out to him that several companies are already on the market with working, tested and distributed products whose basis is hydrogen produced via on board electrolysis. He called my emails "babbling". He threw out several incorrect and incomplete "facts". He then gave up and said I was a "troll", and banned me from his sites.

I applaud his efforts to stop the scammers. Those elusively delusional people do hurt others. However, I do not like the fact he posed as an authority and expert when he is neither. The scammer sites are full of people like that. This site has them too - people who talk about things beyond their experience and understanding as if they were the last word on the subject.

So, I again say, make the challenge a simple one of fuel efficiency. It does not matter what the engine is. If it sees a reduction in specific fuel consumption, something must be working.

Of course, all of you know it will not work. Right?

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Blah blah blah rant rant rant

Jesus dude, don't you have something better to do with your time?

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

Blah blah blah rant rant rant

Flakbadger dude, don't you have something better to do with yours?

[wickydude]

Originally Posted by wickydude

But, since unicorns are immortal, they will keep coming back.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

Jesus dude, don't you have something better to do with your time?

I have very little time, what with all the work I'm buried in. You on the other hand . . .

I kid.



And my name isn't Jesus.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by wickydude

Why don't you tell it to these guys.

thecell.net

Well engineered and integrated into the Cummins ISX engine they had as a demo. They have added more applications since I bumped into them.

They are but one serious company among several.

HHO as Ozzie Freedom paints it, is a scam. Applied with understanding and deft . . . it can save thousands of dollars a year for trucking firms that seek out fuel savings in the few percent range.