Another win for the idiots.

[stovie]

I'm trying to get it so that this thing goes where the battery is and will be about the same size. I'm not sure of the amperage yet but I'd like to get a amp gauge when I get it setup. The best place I know of to put the hho in to the motor is in a vacuum line, vacuum reduces the waters surface tension and allows the bubbles to come to the surface faster. I'm going to see how it works without electrolyte first then start adding very small amounts to try to make the aluminum last longer.

[Grant-53]

While I suspect that the energy product is a net loss I would not deny anyone the opportunity to experiment. The best application I can think of for hydrogen enrichment would be for a cold start in a diesel engine to replace ether injection.

[oil pan 4]

Use glow plugs, intake heaters or both to cold start a diesel.
Pumping HHO into a diesel engine on start up would likely cause bent connecting rods, if it worked.

[oil pan 4]

I have never seen ether explode with a defining bang like HHO.
Ether burns with more of a whoosh sound and is rather lethargic compared to much more energetic HHO.

[IamIan]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

What we need is hard data proving that the benefit is stronger than the cost of separating hydrogen and oxygen.

I forget the thread in the unicorn where I 1st pointed this out in .. but technically if we want to split hairs ... that one piece can be done and has been .. and it is known .. it just doesn't matter ... it is still not worth doing... ie it's a much much smaller benefit than many other options.

Basically it boils down to two parts:

Part #1> The only cost we care about is the cost we pay for .. we don't care about the cost we don't pay for... which is why heat pumps are preferred ... because it can take less energy to move energy than the amount of energy you moved... we don't care about the energy the heat pump took from the the source we don't have to pay for ourselves.

Part #2> Endothermic vs exothermic chemical reactions of HHO in different conditions / contexts... which it does have .. even if it no where near as good as other materials .. which is why other better materials ... like ammonia (with better properties) are used in ammonia chillers and other such applications ... and not an HHO (endo/exo-thermic) cycle.

- - - - -

The HHO (endo/exo-thermic) cycle is soo much worse at this than other materials ... we don't use it (on purpose) ... it isn't that it doesn't exist ... it is just vastly inferior (to other options) in just about every metric you can think of (size, weight, Price $, efficiency, etc.).

I can also use copper to make a very inferior Solar energy to Electric conversion ... Link ... it isn't that it doesn't exist ... it is just soo horribly inferior to other far better options ... we don't do it (on purpose).

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

It is humorous and totally harmless to some.

It interjects intentions and accuses Stovie of being one of the sales scammers when Stovie has done no more than politely offer up his experience.

I made the original post out of frustration to this forum. I made myself a lightning rod for your confrontational views. I can take anything you throw at me. New posters cannot for the most part. They deserve the same courtesy as anyone else.

wow....so know your read minds also??????

I was genuinely interested in an answer.
Why would someone increase mpg by 25% and not keep doing it in the new vehicle?

Thanks stovie for your answer.

[wmjinman]

You know, it seems that most of this site is about doing things that increase mpg. Some here seem to be more about saving money and/or gas (walking, riding bikes), which don't increase the mpg of their car, but DO save gas.

There is also the undercurrent of being able to "prove" - at least quantify - the savings with real-world results. When looking at windshield wiper delete, I saw some did it & also that some couldn't detect any measurable improvement. It was simple & quick enough that I tried it anyway, and guess what? - I detected no measurable improvement. So I put 'em back on so I could use them.

Now to this HHO/on-board hydrogen generator subject: When some try the cheap & simple windshield wiper delete, can't detect improvement & decide to move on to "lower hanging fruit", how can anyone expect us to be easily persuaded to try the HHO/on-board hydrogen generator when it's neither quick, cheap, nor has evidence of saving any more gas/money than a windshield wiper delete?

Now, I love experimenting and admire anyone who does it. But convincing us here on the EcoModder site that HHO/on-board hydrogen generation is wonderful without being able to show real-world results in saving gas/money, and being simple/quick/cheap enough to try to duplicate (peer reviewed/repeatable tests) will probably be a pretty tough sell. I believe this is why comments like, "So do it then, & get back to us with your real-world test results" are frequently seen in these threads.

And telling me how smart you are (and maybe how dumb I am), talking about all kinds of math & chemistry, computerized, sensor-monitored, dynos, laboratories etc, is not nearly as convincing as something like, "hey, I've been driving it for the last XXX months, and in XXX tanks of gas, I'm seeing an improvement of XXX and confirmed it when I disconnected it and my mpg went back to XXX". - accompanied by your fuel log with notations on this site. THEN one of us might go, "hmmm - think I'm gonna try that too". Then if that person can confirm similar results, THEN you're talking!!!

And if the "flamers" on here are too rude, I expect its from impatience - from hearing over and over again how wonderful it is, how smart the people who believe in it are, how dumb we are, and all without the real-world evidence that it even works.

So at the risk of being labeled another "idiot" who doesn't understand math, chemistry, and lab practice, I'll add to the chorus: "So do it then, & get back to us with your real-world test results".

[JRMichler]

+1 to wmjinman's comments.

He said what I wanted to say, but he used better words.

And + another one to stovie. He's actually trying something and telling us what he's doing.

[wmjinman]

Originally Posted by JRMichler

+1 to wmjinman's comments.

He said what I wanted to say, but he used better words.

And + another one to stovie. He's actually trying something and telling us what he's doing.

It wasn't easy - spent more than an hour editing trying to make it more concise and trying to not be too much of a "flamer" myself.

Dittos regarding stovie - I admire the experimenting and frank reporting of the results. If he makes a breakthrough, awesome. If not, he at least got a lot of real-world, hands-on experience with it that will undoubtedly serve him (and maybe us) in the future. Thinking about the aluminum plates getting eaten - - - maybe the thing could be designed so they're really easy to make & replace, and then it could be considered a "consumable" - - ???

Oh, and like the past president of the Reaction Research Society once told me when I was bummed-out at my "failure" to launch my steam rocket the first time I tried it - "Try not to look at these things as failures or successes, but as RESULTS - data. We learn from results, whether they're what we were hoping for or not."

[JRMichler]

I did a search on "HHO" once. Found a lot of threads expounding on how wonderful it was, but none that included proper testing.

Too bad stovie didn't start his own thread. His work will be buried in the noise of a post that started differently.

STOVIE: PLEASE START YOUR OWN THREAD. Title it something like "HHO properly documented and tested".

Signed,
Me and anybody else that respects good work, proper testing, and documented results.