Another win for the idiots.

[deejaaa]

Originally Posted by P-hack

HHO is maligned because it is pickle jars and electrodes and tons of hype and poor and often dishonest testing/marketing. As well as keeping two tanks topped off is impractical.
..........There is no real theory behind hho, just that it will somehow be better.
..........

very well said.
theory doesn't mean proof, like RLN keeps saying, even to me.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

.....I have simply stated the possibility of HHO devices having some beneficial effect under the right set of conditions. Combustion theory supports this possibility. ...........

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Nuts
.....I have simply stated the possibility of HHO devices having some beneficial effect under the right set of conditions. Combustion theory supports this possibility. ...........

What's the argument about then? I think pretty much all of us agree there is something to hydrogen seeding. The disagreement comes from thinking some dope with a pickle jar and some wires is going to succeed where fully staffed engineering departments haven't.

Stovie says he had (key word being "had") a successful system. Good. Now we have a recipe. Duplicate it, third-party test it, publish the results. Collect the rewards and accolades. Build a successful enterprise. Gloat in my severe apologies.

If we are going to say that something that works 0-10% of the time is a success, then:

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by P-hack

HHO is maligned because it is pickle jars and electrodes and tons of hype and poor and often dishonest testing/marketing. As well as keeping two tanks topped off is impractical.

I don't see paying for the computing time to prove/disprove the hype. The company might throw HHO out there (didn't see where) because they could offer their services in the analysis of it, but how much "gain" (including losses) do you hope to get, and how much control of the combustion process is "bolt-on able"? (we aren't designing open cycle rockets from scratch here)

This is a red-herring from an hho perspective. Nobody is going to pay for this kind of research, but will insist there is something worth persuing there anyway. And the pickle jars will keep coming.

There is no real theory behind hho, just that it will somehow be better.

I mean, c'mon, there arent even any comparative hho dyno charts available (at least not ones where they didn't change 20 other things), and we are going to jump to thousands of parallel GPU's?!? (with lossy compression)

No one in their right mind would take an honest look at HHO in a gasoline engine and build a robust business plan around it. Even the advanced theories would only support a few percent gains at a stiochiometric fuel/air mix. But that does not make it utter bunk.

HHO is buried in the drivel of the marketeers. What is the truth behind it? It's hard to find much substance. I am simply proposing to find out. You don't have to. Frank Lee doesn't have to and certainly deejaaa doesn't have to.

But, if you had taken the time to look at the video section that was suggested by the poster, you would have had in inkling of how complex the combustion situation is even in the simplest of fuels. If you had a collegiate understanding of the thermochemistry behind it, you could see the possibility of "railroading" the reaction to favor certain outcomes. Combustion theory is a rapidly growing field in both modelling and lab research. The short-lived HOOH radical has been a part of the theoretical models for decades and only in the last few years has it been detected. It is the radical that theoretically became tied up by tetraethyl lead. It is the radical that breaks hydrocarbon bonds. It railroads the reaction pathways.

So what is "railroading"? Most of you already understand the theory as it applies to combustion as most of you understand the effects of octane boosters and EGR. In both cases, the highly complex and hectic situation that is combustion becomes simplified by the addition of a comparatively small amount of a competing molecule (octane booster) or by the thermodynamic limits put on the reaction (temperature via EGR) limiting or eliminating certain combustion paths. Both situations result in lazy combustion pathways and a slowing down of the oxidation process. On the other hand, I have brought up research in various labs that has shown that the addition of O3(ozone) in the parts per million/billion results in measurable acceleration of combustion (oxidation) and measurable amount of additional pressure rise with reduced ignition lead time. A university student researcher in India has found traces of O3 evolved along with the O2 produced by an HHO electrolysis device. Along with the low energy of dissociation that H2 has and the natural tendency of water to dissociate ( this results in a pH count ), HOOH radicals are formed with increasing pressure, temperature and turbulence - before combustion has even started. The electrolysis based HHO generators provide all the ingredients to spur an accelerated combustion environment.

Now, does all the above mean a mason jar full of drain cleaner can help me get an additional 50% more range from my tank of gasoline? Of course not. But it does point to the possibility of a well crafted solution resulting in positive, measurable gains.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by deejaaa

very well said.
theory doesn't mean proof, like RLN keeps saying, even to me.

Nuclear power was all theory until the detonation of the first atom bomb.

Because you don't understand what I am speaking about, you call my words "hot air" and accuse me of having a bent attitude.

Because you are in the Unicorn Corral, the mods allow you to be abusive.

You have shown a lack of understanding. And you have shown yourself to be abusive. So I throw it back at you. Who needs the adjustment?

The reader can clearly see the answer.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What's the argument about then? I think pretty much all of us agree there is something to hydrogen seeding. The disagreement comes from thinking some dope with a pickle jar and some wires is going to succeed where fully staffed engineering departments haven't.

Stovie says he had (key word being "had") a successful system. Good. Now we have a recipe. Duplicate it, third-party test it, publish the results. Collect the rewards and accolades. Build a successful enterprise. Gloat in my severe apologies.

If we are going to say that something that works 0-10% of the time is a success, then:

Like usual.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

Like usual.

I beg your pardon for being flippant. Your post does bring up the point of the need to have an answer to any and all who would be purveyors of all things HHO. Our past arguments leave holes from which to wiggle from. If we had a cannon of work to refer to, we could simply say , " we have done our own testing and we can conclusively say . . . ". Right now, we don't have that cannon. I would like to make a move to rectify that. Now is the time to do so as interest in fuel economy is low. As fuel prices rise again, so will the rabid interest in this forum. And, we will again be inundated with HHO salesmen as well as honest inquiries. I would like to have an answer that authoritatively ends the discussion or provides guidance to an honest experimenter.

[Frank Lee]

You've repeatedly said it was I who doesn't know what I'm talking about, and not just referring to HHO.

But you've failed to find an erroneous post of mine and refute it.

I can find several posts where YOU were the cheerleader for nonsense.

Is it any different than encouraging someone to lick a frozen flagpole?

What would yet another HHO test prove that dozens or hundreds of previous HHO tests- including tests from people well above layman status- have not?

We HAVE the cannon- actually at least two cannons. One is called EM's proper testing guidelines; keeps people from making claims based on, say, one short fill: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html

Another is EM's guide for promoting fuel saving devices (aimed at product-pushers but works here too) http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...uel-15251.html

(P.S. I've found this professional engineer's site useful: http://web.archive.org/web/201011221...nfo/debunk.htm

And a forum where real engineers (as opposed to dopes like me) hang out: http://www.eng-tips.com/gsearch.cfm?...-1&q=hho&sa=Go )

I can't speak for all of EM but I think in spite of all that has transpired, the door is open for anyone that has proof of HHO or any sort of combustion seeding tech that works. Proof being the key word.

But you're right- I've missed the point. Someone is going to have to spell it out for me again because I still don't get it. :/

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

You've repeatedly said it was I who doesn't know what I'm talking about, and not just referring to HHO.

But you've failed to find an erroneous post of mine and refute it.

I can find several posts where YOU were the cheerleader for nonsense.

Is it any different than encouraging someone to lick a frozen flagpole?

What would yet another HHO test prove that dozens or hundreds of previous HHO tests- including tests from people well above layman status- have not?

We HAVE the cannon- actually at least two cannons. One is called EM's proper testing guidelines; keeps people from making claims based on, say, one short fill: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html

Another is EM's guide for promoting fuel saving devices (aimed at product-pushers but works here too) http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...uel-15251.html

(P.S. I've found this professional engineer's site useful: Fuel saving gadgets - a professional engineer's view

And a forum where real engineers (as opposed to dopes like me) hang out: Eng-Tips Search )

I can't speak for all of EM but I think in spite of all that has transpired, the door is open for anyone that has proof of HHO or any sort of combustion seeding tech that works. Proof being the key word.

But you're right- I've missed the point. Someone is going to have to spell it out for me again because I still don't get it. :/

You and others on this forum have the answers to everything.

You embrace the Sagan test. You laugh at the poor HHO guys with their mason jars because they cannot pass the Sagan test to any satisfaction. You say real research supports you because there are no DIRECT studies to prove ANY effects that HHO could have. This only proves there is a lack of direct studies.

You ask for proof. I am working on that. And yet, the same courtesy afforded to some of the builds on this forum are not extended to anything HHO. Those builds are allowed years to bear fruition for far less stringent goals. Am I supposed to have a rigorous study that can pass the Sagan Test completed in the same time frame that the guy with Cloroplast and duct tape completes his project? You imply a lack of proof must correlate with a lack of basis.

So you caught some errors in my posts? So what? Everyone has "errors" due to various and sundry reasons. Should I feel privileged to have attracted your special attention?

So here is the one glaring error in your argument as evidenced in the links you just put out - misplaced authority. You assume some engineer who posts knows everything about a subject. I think you know that to be false. MEs, EEs, CEs, etc. all have their specialties and their limitations. Good ones know these limitations. I am familiar with Eng-Tips. I have used that site for years. And yes, they do discuss HHO but leave the subject as somewhere between snake oil and plausible with caveats. The lack of active CEs in the discussion hindered any real progress to understanding and most of the posters acknowledged this, to their credit.

Back to the need for some decorum in treating HHO posters here in the Corral. If someone wants to test out HHO, let them. Educate them in the rigorous tests they need to perform and let them do what they will do. If they fail or succeed, they provide data. If they disappear, that too is data. Derision and verbal abuse just drives them off and nothing useful is to be found in the whole exercise.

Here is another error - you repeatedly state your posts are irrefutable. That in itself is the error, because . . . we don't care!

[Frank Lee]

I never said my posts are irrefutable; I said you say they are all crap yet YOU haven't refuted anything.

Educate them in the rigorous tests they need to perform and let them do what they will do.

Derp Derp Derp Durrr, that's what we've been doing.

[P-hack]

@RLN, et. al. The internet isn't plagued with people claiming %50 mpg improvement from pizza pan wheel covers. We are all pretty sick of hearing about HHO I recon. Put up or shut up I think is a fair position.

That being said, I did watch the video (that is how I know the compression is lossy and other limitations of the model!) and I didn't see where they "proved" HOOH. Yes I know temperature (and pressure) effect the electrolysis efficiency, though you may have high temperature and pressure gasses to contend with or piss away that energy. Yes I understand your concerns about pre-tdc ignition and why you would want to shorten the pressure profile, though if the losses are mostly heat related it seems like ceramic coatings might be more appropriate and not require a seperate tank. Or even better engine management (easy in a hybrid or by hand) to avoid high rpm/low MAP operation.

So why are we still on about HHO? It seems like a bad idea on so many levels, are you actually going to prove on it? Or are you going to keep hope alive for all the masons out there with continued speculation? There are so many holes in it from theoretical to practical.