Another win for the idiots.
 

Birk1 comes on the forum making a reasonable inquiry. The lot of you do your usual. Your high school arguments about combustion efficiency are bandied about and the thread devolves into nothing and is closed by the Mods.

Some of you made fair warnings to Birk1 and the thread was moved to the Corral as it should be because of the topic content, but just as always, you go too far as a group. Shame on you.

I made an example of a thread by poor T vago that illustrated the simple idiotic tactics that are often used, knowingly or otherwise to derail a thread. His thread was sound and had value. But it does not matter. Attack, undermine and flood with hack chatter and the original thread is destroyed.

You did the same. Yes, we know scammers often come on here and peddle their wares and I am among the first to chase him off. But, you guys don't stop there do you? Anyone who makes mention of HHO gets lambasted by the same old tired arguments. And they are old and tired. And the Mods don't help by simply closing the thread. That is exactly what the idiots want and you play into their hands.

It is only common courtesy in everyday life to discuss within your abilities and knowledge base. When I bring my father in for his cancer treatment and care, I bring my older brother along. I have designed medical imaging devices and I was part of a team that brought advanced ( for the time ) radiation therapy to the fight against cancer. But, when the discussion turns to the workings of the human body my knowledge becomes limited and my language becomes inadequate. That is why I bring my brother along. He has that medical background and experience. He understands intrinsically the language they use and they appreciate speaking with one of their peers instead of having to dumb down for the "engineer". I pretty much just shut up and listen in as best I can when we go in for these consultations. I do that to be courteous and to facilitate getting to the answers.

The topic of HHO is much the same way. It has it's hacks and quacks pushing this and that. But I have put forward a scenario where a small amount of HHO could affect combustion in a positive way. It has it's own set of concepts and language that is beyond common understanding but this does not negate the fact that it is based on tried and true mainstream science that is used in the field in question.

The application of thermodynamics to thermochemical combustion reactions is found as an elective in many upper level curriculum around the world and extended by avid graduate research. It is a constantly growing field.

If you have a good understanding of the field, please chime in. If not, please be courteous.

If you have struggled through your own HHO build and found gains or losses or nothing at all, that has value too. Add your experience to the pot of knowledge. If you have not built one, please be courteous and refrain from interjecting "expert" advice.

The bottom line is simple. And I state it again. Let people make inquiry and experimentation on HHO devices and installations so that we as a community may have clear cut answers to the others looking in.

Birk1, I invite you to make another inquiring post if you can forgive the dysfunction in these forums.

i think this is central to the HHO discussions, but i'm looking in a different direction. There are many threads here on various builds, either on a whole vehicle, or on a particular modification. Within these threads the build might be talked through step by step, pictures taken, results and testing methods posted and discussed, how and why they succeeded or failed. The builds and the people who make them are like an open book.
Are there any builds like this here that i am missing? It seems more often there are not builds, but a few claims, which seem to be all very secretive for some important yet unverified reason. Modifications previously accepted here as legitimate will be backed up time to time by a new member sharing their success. Despite the prevalence of HHO talk, somehow random outsiders never seem to find their way here to talk out the success of their build.

I doubt that the effect of oxyhydrogen on the combustion process could have escaped the academic world.
Do you know of any publication by any of the recognized university physics departments describing it? Or physic scholar debating it?

If any of this made it to a reputed scientific publication then there is no debate.
If no scientist deemed the matter worthy of publication then there must be a reason for it.

We are hungry for knowledge and love the startling and exciting stuff more than the textbook wisdom, but we have seen too many scams to not be cautious.
We want proof of those claims, not the user testimony kind of stuff - too many patients firmly believe their placebo drugs cured them - but scientifically sound and repeatable experimentation, with an academic backing.

I had a look if I could find any.
Wikipedia does not bode well: Oxyhydrogen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and Hydrogen fuel enhancement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Encyclopedia Brittanica is much more informative, and shows some interesting aspects as the fact that pure oxyhydrogen gas will not burn completely, as the heat that would generate would break up some of the newly formed water molecules again: Oxygen - Temperature, Oxyhydrogen, Heat, and Flame

Academicjournals.org has a research paper which shows test results of a twin cylinder diesel engine run on diesel and either oxyhydrogen or a mix of coconut gas: http://www.academicjournals.org/arti...%20et%20al.pdf. Sadly the English is quite bad and it is impossible to see how they tested or even how they derived their graphs. Lots of claims, no methods, hardly any data.
As it is just a PDF there is no peer review or such.
But it has links to Panacea University... Academic backing, so to say. Now we are getting somewhere.
Gotta check them out: Panacea - University of Pavia
Hmm, so what do they do, really? What have they achieved?
Then I found this: http://www.panaceatech.org/Marco%20Rodin%20Coils.pdf
Oh dear, oh dear. An unrecognized self proclaimed university offering course material anyone can provide. Nudge nudge.

Then from India's Ijettjornal.org: more detailed, and better readable.
This actually does provide a description of the engine used, methods and data.
It does show that the addition of oxyhydrogen gas improves the power output of a lean burning diesel engins, but sadly falls short of answering the question of whether the power needed to produce the oxyhydrogen is more than what you gain from burning it again. Instead they just refer to a 12V power supply, which in fact could be a reasonable setup: just have an extra 12V battery to generate the oxyhydrogen and charge it on the mains, turning a diesel engined car into a partial plugin EV.
Whether that beats an alternator delete setup?

A worthy source of information is this patent for an oxyhydrogen generator: Patent US20140216366 - Hydrogen on-demand fuel system for internal combustion engines - Google Patents.
Now a patent is not proof it works, but the description gives a wealth of references to follow up on. It also describes the problems of other systems of generating oxyhydrogen so it deserves a good look by anyone tempted to use those.

It also cites a 1977 NASA document (EMISSIONS AND TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF A MULTICYLINDER PISTON ENGINE RUNNING ON GASOLINE AND A HYDROGEN-GASOLINE MIXTURE) that all the HHO sites refer to (f.i. http://empirehydrogen.com/docs/NASA_TN_D-8487.pdf)
Reading that I don't really see why.
NASA replicates some of the results the Indians discovered 35 years later, but again the effect is not really staggering. It does have some beneficial effects, it would be impossible not to have that, but again it is doubtful that it would outdo the cost of generating hydrogen - at best. NASA sees it as a problem and looks into generating hydrogen from methanol, which seems to defeat practicality.

I can go on like this but every link I try and every reference I check ultimately ends in insignificance or worse.

So, I have tried to find any good but I am not convinced oxyhydrogen can be of practical use; the contrary, rather.
It does drive me towards biochemically processing a mild ethanol mixture, so it is time to end this post now while I take that matter to heart.

+1 :thumbup:

There have been a few honest inquiries about HHO and vapor carbs.
 

Some of them have builds. They all meet the same end. A closed thread because of idiotic interjection.

I would like to see Birk1 reveal more of his build and see what he has done. But, I would not blame him for leaving considering the reception this forum gives any HHO subject.

I have been on these forums since it's inception with differing accounts as I was on the development team for an Xprize entrant as the engine specialist. Back then the forum paralleled the Xprize and was a vibrant and accepting place. I even met many posters face to face. There was a higher degree of courtesy and professionalism. Jory Squib, builder of "Moonbeam" and a physicist was energetic and engaging. Wind him up and let him go! I learned much just listening to a fellow who preached and lived his message of economy. I spent an afternoon with Nancy Hazard an organizer of the Tour Del Sol and the Xprize. I learned of her vision and wish for the better place we could leave for our children. I had dinner with Jack McCornack and absorbed his ideas of building smaller, lighter and more economical. I looked at his work and he looked at mine. I marveled at his building of Max his Xprize entrant. He bluntly scoffed at my installation of an HHO device and simply said "those things don't work". It did not offend me and I still hold him in esteem for being the crafty and savvy builder that he is. Ernie, another physicist from Colorado who posted a theoretical paper about the application of the Atkinson cycle to the diesel engine cycle was blunt in his doubts the electrolytic products of water could make a difference when made on board a vehicle. All of them were courteous enough to refrain from continued bashing or interjections when the subject matter strayed outside their base of knowledge. That does not happen here. Everyone is an expert and has a say in any subject they can Google.

I have a build. I finally got permission to reveal the work I did for a development group concerning hydrogen augmented combustion in spark ignited gasoline engines the end of this September. I just cannot use the data gathered under their pay. It is theirs to use. The work was brief as it was quickly realized there is little market for an HHO device. A device that operates in the classically studied 4% hydrogen by volume or greater would be needed for any market acceptance. Thus, no work continued for HHO devices.

But, I can reproduce the work. Nothing stops me from doing so. But should I reveal it here where such a poison of opinion prevents anyone from getting very far before the thread is closed because of the usual ruffians?

I have my doubts. The forum has devolved into a shadow of what it used to be. And I have my day job finishing the development of a hydrogen generator with a couple orders of magnitude more capability than the HHO devices seen on YouTube. Nothing magical. Just good engineering applied to well known science principles ( in the subject matter ). Just watch, the naysayers will jump in a say "prove it, prove it, prove it".

Because they are experts in the field and because they can.

I appreciate your post.
 

RedDevil,

You bring up the problem one runs into in research using the web. There is overwhelming data, and the attempt to digest it results in mental indigestion.

That is why I propose we do our own research. If we had a few posters who had builds and could be teachable, maybe we could collaborate to answer some questions. But, we never get there. The usual tired arguments are thrown like dung at the thread.

You must remember that science also has it's stigmas and mental pitfalls. Academia may not see the value in HHO research and that is understandable. But, there is talk of research into hydrogen seeding effects since this could be valuable to HCCI (homogenous charge compression ignition ) research. There has been research to the effects off small ( parts per million ) amounts of ozone seeding. I will have to look for an active link to that conclusion. Simply put, 40 ppm could accelerate combustion. In HHO, we always forget that the other compound , oxygen, is often not pure and contains a small amount of ozone.

There is some evidence for HHO interaction. It is often found in eye opening claims results. I have tried to chase down some of these claims and looked into the engine and setup to attempt to divine what, if anything is going on. I have come to the conclusion certain conditions must be in place for HHO to have a useful effect and some installations just happen to have those conditions so the installer claims success and thinks he can sell the device to everyone - with mixed results.

Since academia does not provide us a clear picture of HHO, we must make our own postulations based on good, clear science and then test accordingly.

RustyLugNut et.al. -- I refer you ALL back to the Unicorn Corral's introductory statement:

...Carl Sagan test: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

and "...trust me, I know what I'm doing..." just don't hack it.


Unsubstantiated *extraordinary evidence* is merely fodder for the Devil's Advocates among us.

Infinitesimally small levels of HHO will yield even infinitesimally smaller levels of results.

If you want to increase oxygen levels do what all the old people who smoked all their lives are forced to do, get an oxygen concentrator.
If you think Ozone is the key to everything take the oxygen concentrator and run an electric arc through the oxygen stream. That will get as much or as little Ozone as you want. It will far surpass and be much more controllable then what an HHO cell will provide.
If all you are trying to do is increase burn speed there are several things that can be done to increase a gasoline engines air fuel burn speed. The addition of nitrous oxide or just simply increase compression.

Everything you want to test would be so much better tested with something other than an HHO cell. So why the obsession with HHO when its clearly not what you need to do the test?

Seems you have already determined you need an HHO cell for what ever reason, now you are just trying to justify it.

If you don't like it, there are plenty of idiot free HHO forums out there to spread your pathological science on.

Rusty, when you have to resort to emotional arguments in a technical discussion, you just might be an idiot. It is healthy to understand your own emotions, but trying to shame and the cancer thing and the sustainability thing all have nothing to do with the subject. I dare say we have gotten too thin skinned, that when productive technological discussion takes a back seat to sensitivity then we have some serious growing up to do.

I hope that I remember to use this in the future! :)

I see an overwhelming lack of data, rather.
The properties of oxyhydrogen gas are well known (see the Encyclopedia Brittannica link) and it is obvious that mixing such a highly explosive gas with the intake air does have an effect on the combustion process.

What we need is hard data proving that the benefit is stronger than the cost of separating hydrogen and oxygen.
If it is out there I could not find it. Nor can you, apparently.
Don't tell me you can, just show what you found.

Sure, science does have its pitfalls but science does its best to avoid them, so much so that the occasional glitch makes the headlines.
So science is stigmatized and therefore does not recognize the benefit of oxyhydrogen?
Scientists simply refuse to get involved with a device that can seriously reduce fuel consumption, for no reason at all?
Who would believe that?

I rather believe that scientists do understand the process and when they test it they find the expected result namely no usable positive effect.
Élaborating the obvious does not get attention, that's why it is so hard to find.
Ìf science does not cut it nothing does.

It is about time that I win! Finally! :)

I understand the Sagan test much better than most of you.
 

All I am asking is that we be allowed to explore HHO. Is that too much to ask? Obviously to the overt reactionaries it seems that it is.

Only few of us have never had someone question our mods on our cars, or worse.
We do these things for a reason, obviously.

In my case I think my mods are helpful but I cannot prove it; too many variables, never seriously attempted to ABA test them.
There is sound reasoning behind my mods and indeed my economy has jumped.
Yet, I only say i believe or expect that they help, but I won't put a percentage on them nor consider it proven.

If you are set on experimenting with oxyhydrogen you do not need our permission.
Just don't make bold claims before the results are in.
Because that's what raising the red flags over here.
Reactionary? Just be careful with that blame game.

Do you know much about thermochemistry and chemical kinetics?
 

Those are very well known branches of science and you have ignored them in your searches.

Science research does not work on what one wants. It works on grant money. I've been there and done that. One often has to look through oblique and circuitous paths in research.

If you feel it is a dead end, then why don't you drop out of the conversation. If you just want to heap your Google research on the subject, I can't stop you. But why don't you put into Google "ozone 40ppm combustion" and see a link to Reasearchgate and download a pdf from the SAE on how small amounts of ozone measurably affect combustion. As I have said in the past. We often ignore the oxygen aspect of HHO. It is not pure. The presence of impurities in the electrolyte causes this. HCCI research is heavily dependent on chemical kinetics.

And I cannot give you a link to a hardcover book on my desk "Combustion by Glassman & Yetter". Look into the first chapter and the table 1.1 on heats of formation and the realization that the 250 KJ/mol of heat isn't just miraculously released but goes through a myriad number of pathways, some endothermic, some exothermic. Compounds such as benzene, acetylene and hydrazine are formed in the flame front, decomposed and go on and form other compounds. In this whole mix are the highly reactive radicals of H+ (free hydrogen) and OH- (Hydroxyl radical). These short lived radicals are key in the rate of reaction. Hydrogen gas is not consumed instantly as some presume. It becomes an active participant in the depolymerization of the base hydrocarbon and only fully oxidizes when all that is left is CO and H. This is not hocus pocus but well known principles of combustion.

But, what if you add enough hydrogen so that you don't have to exothermically absorb 410 kj/mol of energy ( you have to wait for that energy to develop) to cleave a H atom from the hydrocarbon? With the water that is often present in HHO systems bubblers, the 218 kj/mol to split the H2 molecule can be as low as 23 kj/mol. Now, can you see how HHO in the intake tract to a hot, turbulent combustion chamber, can change the chemical kinetics of the fuel mix even before combustion starts by virtue of providing a measure of the important H+ and OH- radicals?

If none of this makes sense to you, simply put - the addition of HHO into the intake tract of a gasoline fueled spark ignited engine can change the balance of chemical species before the onset of ignition.

The question is, can it accelerate the combustion sequence? And, by how much?

Given some time and space I can tell you.

The Hubris of this forum is well documented.
 

I have not made bold claims. I have made reasonable claims. I have made the claim that under the right circumstances the addition off HHO can make a measurable gain in efficiency.

And I have already experimented.

I am simply looking to redo the work and present it in such a way that it meets the Sagan Test to the satisfaction of most.

Look at my posts on the science behind this. It is not out of the ordinary.

I like this.
 

The Wizard of Id supports this.

I am tempted to say Blahbiddy Blah Blah Blah and leave it at that.

So Rusty is asserting that it is OUR fault HHO fails? Bwaahahaha, good one.

Nobody here is preventing anyone from making a successful HHO system.

Go ahead and do it. Then you'll get the last laugh. I won't be holding my breath though.

Nobody here has ever debated that hydrogen injection can work.

The only question has ever been "Can you supply enough from an onboard bubbler to make an actual difference."

Not holding my breath, either.

It's very easy to show economy results. Hell... propane enrichment and water/alcohol injection (for diesels, nothing doing on gasoline cars) proponents show them all the time in the form of instrumented testing results.

But then, they're not trying to generate their own fuel on the fly...

Prototypical answer.
 

Incorrect assertion. Interjection of intent that was never there.

Considering your total lack of understanding of various subjects, it is amazing how often you pop up and make off the cuff comments that are not even part of the discussion.

I am asserting that commentary such as you provide, keep honest inquiries into the subject matter from going very far. Got that? Do you want to continue the argument? Your continued argument proves my point.

People such as you can spew all they want on the internet because there is no recourse or penalty. Your continued secretions of the mind prove my point. You cannot talk about the subject matter at hand so you dump. Bravo.

You speak with the broad strokes of a writer.
 

Your last sentence shows you have missed the whole point of the exercise. At no time have I ever said we are producing a fuel stream.

Have you built a water injection system from the ground up? Have you done the same for a propane/natural gas injection into a diesel? Have you done any research work in dyno cells? You write about it, but have you ever done it?

Do you know how to use an electrolysis device to capture some of the waste heat of combustion and reduce the generator losses?

Do you understand the principles behind the chemical kinetics that govern combustion in my discussion outlined above?

Have you ever designed and built instrumentation to measure in cylinder pressure curves? Have you designed and built fuel flow meters that can measure accurately down to less than a cc/min? Have you designed a wireless strain gauge integrated into the drive-shaft of a vehicle to measure road going loads?

Believe me, when I say there will be instrumented data to peruse. I understand the Sagan Test. And I understand that instrumented data will not be enough to even convince the most dogged opponent.

Edit.
I have to add that the instrument work I participated in 20 years ago, is now found in off the shelf applications. Road going dyno systems can be purchased for a few thousand dollars.

Yes, some of us have -- 10 years Tank/Automotive testing at USArmy Yuma Proving Ground; road testing water and water/alcohol injection in ICE and diesel engines, using road dynamometers (tanks don't care too much about aerodynamics).

And, astute members do NOT have to re-invent the errors of others to see that while something MAY be physically possible it is presently NOT practically possible.

Good for you.
 

But, have you done any research into the chemical thermodynamics of combustion species? Can an exceedingly small amount of HHO, under the right conditions result in a domino effect of radical production that the resulting combustion profile follows that of the classically understood 4% and greater hydrogen assisted combustion?

That is the salient question. An astute member would have recognized this.

Quite apart from all this, there's a simple practical question: if something looks like a scam, sounds like a scam, and is sold like a scam, why shouldn't a sensible person assume that it IS a scam? (Like those "One weird trick..." ads that pop up on web sites.) And conversely, if people don't want their new invention to be taken for a scam, why do they go to such lengths to a) make it seem like a scam; and b) put their effort into selling it to the market most likely to fall for scams?

It is quite apart from what I am asking.
 

You will have to ask the scammers. Birk1 wasn't scamming. Hypermiler wasn't either. I certainly am not.

Then there is the other question. "Could there be any trace of truth to their claims"?

Why don't we try to find out. Let us be truthful. No one on here has even tried and stayed to report. Why don't we take a closer look?

How about you James? What do you think? Can a small amount of HHO mixed into the combustion chamber under the right conditions cause a domino effect to produce a change in the combustion profile? I have given my postulations. But short of a test engine with a boro-silicate view port and laser interferometry analysis as well as a complete exhaust gas analysis, I really won't know. Be that as it may, we can test pressure, temperature and fuel use quite easily.

You are invited to prove me wrong on something.

P.S. I've changed my mind. I don't care what Mr. Nuts thinks about me or my commentary- that is for each individual to decide. Suffice to say, he hasn't convinced me of any error of my ways.

Exploring unicorns pretty much killed the entire Gassavers site. The place turned into a joke.

Well, I'm off to the airport to pick up my beautiful wife.

A blessed Thanksgiving to all, even if you live in a part of the world that doesn't observe the holiday. It is a good thing to be thankful for what we have and cherish.

And I am thankful for this forum and it's members, even if we butt heads, it is because we care about something enough to be passionate about it.

You are invited to build the millionth or so HHO bubbler that has a negative net effect on over all fuel economy.

Like I've said... nobody debates that enrichment possibly works. The problem is you're trying to generate your fuel... or octane booster... or enrichment radicals... or whatever... on the fly.

ALL that we would like to see here is proof that this can be done without an overall net loss of energy.

An engine on a dyno could be configured to have various fuels introduced while monitoring the power output. With known quantities of HHO, or hydrogen, methane, or any other fuel chosen then would not the power output reflect Rusty's belief that combustion was enhanced by the introduction of additional hydrogen.

You mentioned 4%. By volume, weight, or energy content? Even if we assume that your postion is correct, Rusty, which is the simplest way to get past the "idiots" (post title) or the 60% savings (claimed by birk) or any other individual whose objective is to USE the credibility of the forum to SELL something which evidence does not support their claims, then you could calculate the energy cost of production of the additional fuel.

Separation of the supply system by using tanks of the material in question from the production using the vehicles charging system would allow precision measurements of output.

HCCI claims an ideal 25% increase inefficiency. I think that is a theoretical maximum, but one of great significance, if it can be achieved under real world conditions and I definitely believe it can be achieved.

Lean burn is as close as we have come to this point, but sadly those who control the regulatory environment made NOX the killer of lean burn. In my opinion The issue is non homogenous mixture, which means you have to get the fuel into the cylinder with better atomization. Preheating the fuel ("free" energy othewise wasted) and injecting it at much higher pressures seems to be the logical pathway at this time.

Even if you succeed in a laboratory, it may never see mass production and distribution unless the system is virtually idiot proof. With product liability attorneys and govt regulators just waiting to pounce and your corporations financial life on the line in every class action suit, most rational people would understand the reluctance to innovate at anything more than a snails pace.

regards
mech

personal insults
 

Yes, I've been reading this thread. (I've received a few PM's / reports.)

Stop the personal insults. There are already multiples here, including by the O.P.

(And THANKS to those of you who are still able to communicate without resorting to them.)

This topic is forum poison. It's been declared off-limits elsewhere (CMPG?), and from the perspective of a forum admin/benevolent dictator, that's understandable & appealing, regardless of whether there's any legitimacy to the concept.

EDIT/SUGGESTION: to those wanting to explore the topic and avoid "the usual outcome", adopt a different approach.

If some one with out delusions of grandeur wants to build an HHO cell and test it with out making all kinds of extraordinary claims then I say go for it.
But for some reason HHO just seem to always attract those kinds of people.
The few times I have seen builds from what seem like curious reasonable people they start building an HHO cell. Document and put up pics then when they get to the point where they start testing it you never hear from them again.
I can only surmise they were killed with their HHO cell exploded, the results were an embarrassment or initial results show that any further testing would be a complete waste of time or the conspiracy theorists favorite: the oil company got them.

I think you nailed it.
The HHO pushers are trying to hijack the only large creditable forum on the internet to push their pathological science.

I'll withhold judgement on the first two mentioned. In your case (and I assure you I don't mean this as an insult, but as a simple statement of fact) I think you're a victim of the scam, and one of the quasi-religious variety who, once they/ve become emotionally invested in the belief, simply can't admit they're wrong. The classic example, I think, are the "MMR vaccine causes autism" crowd.

You honestly think people haven't tried? The problem is that they've gotten no significant positive result, or even negative results, so the true believers ignore them.

Do I know much about thermochemistry and chemical kinetics?
 

MY searches! YOU are responsible to back up your claims, not I.

Yup, I found the PDF you are referring to: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/...586dacfb000000

Check it out.
Notice the used engine type (Homogeneous charge compression ignition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).
Notice the conditions under which the ozone affects the combustion.
Our engines do not run pure iso-octane at 200°C (382°F) intake temp at over 30 bar (420 PSI).

I understand the reasons why they did so, and I can imagine there can be a benefit from seeding ozone into a regular engine.
But regular engines don't suffer from the problems that HCCI engines encounter, neither could they ever approach the efficiency of a well running HCCI engine no matter what you put in the intake.

Better keep civil and tone down. Remember real experts never boast their knowledge.

I noticed the HHO believers always go on and on about what they know. Even if they really don't know anything.
Remember the fuel vapor guy? The surface carb building HHO believer that told off the mods and "threatened" to reveal our true identities a few months back comes to mind.
He was often if not always wrong, never in doubt, talked big, couldn't back any of it up and didn't have the resources to deliver.

http://i1291.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8dbfd9b0.jpg


the discussion is way over my head, but the banter is hilarious!!
subscribed.

Thanks,
Victor

See, Unicorns are REAL, it is actually the people who are UNREAL (wink,wink).

when will this person appear.........:p:rolleyes::eek::D:cool::)

please step from behind the curtain!!!! lol

I came on this forum a few years ago stating that I have had good experience with a hydrogen reaction chamber on my GMC Sierra 2500. It got a solid 12 mpg before I put the "reaction chamber" on and the next three tanks we got a solid 15 mpg showing a solid 25% increase in fuel economy and got bashed by frank lee and a couple others about it. No I do not have evidence because I did this a year before joining ecomodder. All I can do is state my experience with it and let you guys make your own decision on it yea know!!

Stovie,
With a 25% increase I'd be selling kits and putting it on all my cars.
What happened?