A gift for HHO Skeptics!
 

Helllooooo!!. (First, sorry by my english ;) )

I'm really happy reading that LOT of sceptics about HHO here!. It's cool, there are sceptics about all in this world!. Specially if you don't test something :turtle:

Most of HHO lovers, like me, began as skeptics, is normal in this life, no?.

Ok, first...

1. I want all you to read this: http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Hyd...Combustion.pdf

2. Ohhhh, a Forum of Scammers?, of People wasting time writing fake things?
Testimonials!!!!!!!!!!!!! - HHO Forums - Trying to facilitate the production of HHO for the common folk.
Over 140 testimonial fake posts? :S
Over 3000 fake members on a NON-SELLING Forum?. Really?.

3. What a lot of "fake" information on an Open Source Forum!
Hydroxy Gas

4. More fake info? References Validating HHO Technology

5. NASA also speaks about fake things! http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf

6. WTF!!!!!!! A 343 Pages Fake Open Source Document!! http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Hydroxy%20Boosters.pdf

Friends... HHO works, really...


Speaking seriously, some things have happened in HHO Boosters evolution:

1. 98% of HHO Sellers are Scammers :D
2. 98% of HHO Boosters are bull****! (inefficient!) Those that Scammers sell!.
3. Scammers sell **** systems: http://www.magnumtuning.com/carperfo...ell_magnum.jpg (that's a Wet Cell, inefficient, cheap, and bad!).
4. HHO Really let you run leaner without losing power or getting higher engine temps!, but you are adding Oxigen!, if you don't use an EFIE, Computer will send more fuel!. You need to use a CORRECT EFIE! with a Efficient HHO Cell! :) (Myth Busters tested this, but without EFIE! :P ).
5. There's a slim line between getting good results with HHO or not, that's the most big problem!. 99% people testing HHO systems, do a BIG mistake: Spending a LOT of Ampers for getting higher amount of HHO... There's a point of the best result, but is far away!. You need ~ 4Amps / 1L engine size ;)...

Sorry, I'm not in the english speaking level to fight with skeptics, for me is hard to write hehe.

Only I can say, it WORKS, but it have to been done CORRECTLY!.

In my Carburetted car I got ~50% more MPG after tuned correctly my HHO System + Carburettor + Distributor.



Regards. Gatech.

Thank you for posting this. I too run a custom HHO system and although I have yet to test it in my Ford Focus, I tested a system in my dad's Jeep and received a 20% boost and that was with an inefficient wet cell.

Thanks to you, Jim.

I have got ~50 more MPG with no more mods :), is that ~33% savings? :)

On my EFI car, I got more MPG after I tuned my ignition and fuel maps.

On our old carburetted cars, we got more MPG after we tweaked the distributor and jets.

It's not enough to do all that and claim that this single part of it is what makes the modification work. You've got to know why and how it worked. If you're simply relying on the gas generated to boost octane and suppress detonation from running much leaner, you could do the exact same thing with water injection (water injection allows you to run tres lean), without spending on the extra current to electrolyze it.

I also find it funny that in the testimonial thread, there was a user stating that the increased MPG also happened when the kit was off. Which indicates the likelihood that it was merely the cleaning properties of the higher octane mix with hydrogen that caused the increase in economy... and not the on-the-fly enrichment itself. :D

But seriously, no one is debating the added hydrogen helps combustion. That's a given. The question in my mind is whether the extra steps required to release that hydrogen are worth it versus injecting the fluid you're making the hydrogen from (water) straight into the chamber with the appropriate delivery system.

Gee, so convincing, gotta go now, gonna stay up all night fabbing up a ho ho ho system. :rolleyes:

My point is the fame that made that lot of SCAMMERS!.

With inefficient HHO "Generators" you need a LOT of Amps from Alternator!.

In my tests, I got the best fuel economy with 6.5Amps (is that a Lot?) on my 1.5L engine :)

In this topic I'll try to ignore skeptics without arguments (specially if they haven't tested a HHO System :) )

Greetings since Colombia!

Bogus, Columbia.

browns gas works you just need alot!!! of it and the old something for nothing comes to mind I did start a set up just never finished it, lots of stainless stuff & plastic spacers on the bench

THAT'S THE MISTAKE!. You DON'T need a lot!.

You should try to continue with your project!.

I got my best results with about 0.6LPM of HHO (6Amps)

But one thing, WITHOUT EFIE you WON'T see positive results :D

Any fancy links for us documenting your work tuning the car for best mileage before adding HHO?

What IS HHO anyway? I'm starting to assume it's an overly complex and unnecessarily fanciful spin on water injection...?

And does the first "H" stand for "Horse***t?"

You wouldn't want him to actually use something stupid like the scientific method to test his claims?
Oh the hipocrisy of not believing the "facts".

regards
Mech

Bold Added:
A few clarification requests:

#1> Please post the dyno charts of your testing that shows no loss of power.
( Or have you not done the testing? )

#2> How are you differentiating between the Lean Burn effects and the HHO effects? ( clarification of request: Lean Burn effects can be had without HHO ... for HHO to be worthwhile it has to contribute more than just those Lean Burn effects. )

#3> What % mix of Hydrogen to Water vapor are you using in your HHO? ( if it just H2+O2 , than HHO is the wrong term to use. )

Most of the time , when it gets described ... HHO means they are mixing water injection with hydrogen injection.

The hydrogen part could be a bottle of hydrogen ... but about ~90% of the time ... they get in the car by using electrolysis at less than 30% efficiency to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

HHO is just a short hand term to indicate the Hydrogen injection part difference with regular water injection.

If I am not mistaken hydrogen is in gasoline ,diesel ,nat gas. all are (hydrocarbon). What does a fuel cell produce ya ask yourself . HHO could be a good direction Go Guys. I will finish mine, I will.

THANK you, I understand now. I did some searching on here and found a lot of negative responses, but no reference to what it meant in the first place.

Having made hydrogen at home with a complicated generator designed and built by actual engineers, and having used said hydrogen to power a car (briefly) I can tell you this.

Does "HHO" work? Yeah. It actually does. It generates hydrogen, it can be burned, and it actually does do something.

Unfortunately all it does is a glorified science experiment. The losses in generating hydrogen are extremely high. The amount you get off a car alternator are very little. The energy to run the alternator comes from the cars engine. Burning hydrogen results in water...so even at %100 efficiency a "HHO" generator will only result in a complicated way of moving water down into the exhaust pipe...rendering -ZERO- power output. The laws of conservation of energy apply here.

The only science supporting this increases fuel economy? Efficiency boosting. Hydrogen effects the way gasoline burns since hydrogen itself is flammable. Its a lot like propane in diesel applications, it can cool an engine, increase flame front speed, and it can increase the amount of timing advance the engine can handle without causing pinging. Great!

So lets analyze this NASA paper you post as evidence. Its long and extremely technical so I'll break it down for people. Yes, NASA agrees, adding hydrogen in a piston engine increases efficiency. Perfect. But how much is also posted.

Page 14 (16 on the PDF), "Total Energy Consumption". It goes on to state that the engine they used experienced a %3 (three) increase in energy conversion efficiency. So, taking that for lent, it already means HHO doesn't work, because everyone running HHO claims improvements over ten times higher then that. This was a NASA test to find hydrogen's overall energy benefit and they got all of three percent in a controlled environment, which a car is not.

But just to make sure this horse is beat to death properly, how much hydrogen did they inject into this engine? Granted, the engine is in excess of a 7 liter engine, so I'll do some extrapolation, but NASA needed to inject 0.231 kilograms per hour into this engine to get that %3.

Lets divide that by seven for fun. 0.033 kilograms per hour. This is poor math and bad scientific application, but needless to say you need /at least/ that much hydrogen per hour to even approach the claims that NASA paper makes. 0.033 doesn't sound like a lot except for one problem.

To get 1 kilogram of hydrogen, it requires about 55kWh of energy. This is easily found online because many people ponder if we can use wind or solar to generate hydrogen from water for cars, and needless to say, the energy requirements are massive. Doing the math, 55000 watts / 1 kilogram translates to 1815 watts of power / 0.033 kilograms.

1815 watts an hour. /1815/. Per hour. That is how much energy we're talking you need to generate enough hydrogen to get a %3 increase in efficiency. Bearing in mind, NASA considers an increase in efficiency to be an increase in total usage of gasoline energy. That entire paper says nowhere that the engine, itself, is generating the hydrogen.

1815 / 13.4 = 135.4 amps of current. Awesome; your alternator is absolutely maxed out or way over its capacity at this point. Most cars don't even have an alternator capable of over 80 amps constant. This also eliminates everything else in your car operating. This is how much current is necessary to produce /less then/ enough hydrogen to match the NASA test. Bearing in mind, I divided the required figures /by seven/, meaning this extrapolates to something around the hydrogen required to increase the efficiency in a 1.1 liter engine a whopping %3.

And I could easily calculate the horsepower draw but needless to say, people disabling their alternator have already net more gains then %3 anyhow. According to Google, with a perfect (perfect) translation of energy, 1815 watts equates to 2.43395509. A 1.1 liter engine in a FIAT Panda as an example, generates about 50 horsepower. Using 2.5 horsepower to generate hydrogen to net a %3 gain means you're getting 1.5 horsepower in increased power output from more efficient fuel burn. 50 - 2.5 + 1.5 = 49. Not a lot, but that is a loss anyhow, with the added cost of ruining your alternator.

So, we done yet with HHO? I'd love to know why its so popular when nobody has any logical science behind it and nobody has any independent tests to prove it. There's a reason why. Its a fraud. And being so enthusiastic about it without any verified claims and quoting the amount of members on a forum as being evidence means you're either insane or buying into a fad because you want to be right.

Then can we find a reason why so many people have experienced benefits from HHO?

The same reasons placebos work, and the same reason why I've yet to see a fully independent study coincide with the claims made for HHO.

I did my homework, you do yours.

Edit: And money. %90 of HHO websites out there are pyramid schemes. The few who claim to be legit are vague at best about their research, goals and evidence.

LOL Who might that be?

I've done fuel economy tests on a 1998 Jeep Cherokee sport that showed a 10-20% increase in fuel economy with the HHO system on. If it's not the HHO, I would truly like to know why it works. I'll be doing more tests on my ford focus so hopefully I can figure out where the 10-20% gain in fuel economy comes from. I'd just like to know where the extra fuel economy comes from.

Did you do any sort of tuneup on this Jeep?

well i guess i will just use my stainless fender washers to bolt on my aeronose then

HydroJim, so everything being the same, you can flip the switch off and your mileage drops 10-20% and you can show this with an instant MPG read out while you have cruise control on or are otherwise on a flat road maintaining the same speed?

These were direct before and after tests that I did multiple occasions. Nothing else on the vehicle changed and I went to the same exact pump at the same exact gas station and did the tests when traffic was low to insure accuracy. At the time I didn't have any instrumentation hooked up to the vehicle except for the onboard mpg computer which always showed a higher MPG than normal with the HHO but I ignored that because the computer always over reported the mileage with or without HHO. I did fuel economy tests by filling up the gas tank all the way to the lid and measuring the amount used and recorded the miles traveled. I admit the sample sizes were small(30 miles at a time) and once I find the time to get the system on my focus up and running I will be running longer tests with an ultragauge hooked up and I will try turning the system on will running down the highway and see if the mpg changes instantly. I'll definitely post my findings. I'm just trying to find an explanation.

Meaning you could easily be led astray by filling errors.
Even a small error in the recorded miles or fuel volume is going to have huge effects.

Sample size were small. Ridiculously small.
Not a good way to measure fuel economy.
Even if the fuel was supplied from a portable fuel container, either incrementally marked or placed on a accurate weigh scale, 30 miles is just not enough run time to get effective comparable results with.
Just using the cars gas tank and the auto shut off at the gas station after 300 miles let along 30 miles would be inconclusive. The longer the sample mileage the more complete of a result you will get.

The cars gas tank should be filled from the same pump, parked in the same position and filled to a point on the filler hoses neck where you can see the settled non foamy gas's level, repeat on subsequent fill ups.
Not trying to be Dic to you HydroJim, its how i measure my cars economy because its the only way to accurately measure at fill ups, short of supplying the gas to the car from a Jerry can.

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

good old fashioned turkey shoot. E-HA

Ho ho ho guys, put your money where your mouth is, your credibility is in the toilet and that's the only way you'll climb out. That, or admitting your massive **** up.

Frank Lee, how long do you think we will to wait for old mechanic to get a taker

I don't know if you read my reply but I don't allow for automatic shut off from the gas station. I fill up to the top of the neck. and the sample size of 30 miles was just the route I took on about 10 tests which all showed between a 10 to 20% increase with HHO. More stringent testing would have been used, but my dad was in town for only about 2 weeks so we didn't have a lot of time for testing. I won 2nd place in my local science fair. All the engineers I spoke with there were highly intrigued and didn't flat out refute my idea. Instead of criticizing everything, they gave suggestions and had open minds to try and figure out what is going on. Cruise control allowed for no placebo. If it was a one time test, I would think it was error, but the test was conducted many times with the same result. But I will definitely go for longer trips now that I am 16 and have my license so I don't have to make my dad drive for hours on end without a destination. Again, I'm just trying to keep an open mind and find an explanation for the results.

Old mechanic- I would love to use a 5 gas exhaust analyzer to compare before and after, but I'm not rich, so I don't have one of those in my garage. I did get the ohio e-check test when I first got my car, but I doubt a comparison 2 years later will be accurate at all, but I when I need to renew it, I will run it through with the HHO running. I'd be real interested in seeing what happens to the emissions. You're probably right about the NOx, I won't know until I try it.

We will all be in nursing homes first.

mwebb is another EMer I believe is fully capable of conducting a believable test. He has offered his services to no avail as well.

The EM "How to Test" and "HHO" threads should be required reading. It would go a long way in preventing further nonsense of this sort.

Finally, I am not banned again to post -.-

I want to show you all serious tests soon. I don't get or win ANYTHING if I make you believe this is true, cuz I'm not a seller. But I want to shut up some mouths :)

So... I'll be back :P

This week I'll do some tests with Diesel Generators.

I'm updating results on my profile by now :)


Regards.

Dude. You joined yesterday. How could you have been banned, then unbanned?

Today, 12 hours ago, I wrote a post answering to some questions and attacks from some people :P... when I posted, it said that it have to been validated by a Moderator (it never happened -.-)..

Regards.

As a professional engineer then: your theory is bad, your application is bad, your testing methods are grotesquely inadequate, and you have absolutely no independent testing.

You also still haven't done your homework which I asked you to do. If this thing works, tell me the science, because so far the only evidence I've been shown for HHO (a NASA paper saying hydrogen improves efficiency, and definitely not HHO), which was easily used to disprove these claims wholeheartedly.

But whatever, most HHO supporters likely throw out all evidence that doesn't support their claims which makes claiming it works ignorant and easy.

"Oh I lost MPG this time...HHO generator must not be working."

Get real.

If you don't believe, it doesn't mean that this doesn't work ;)

Since I installed my HHO Dry Cell, I NEVER returned to original MPGs ;)

Regards.

HHO isn't Never Never Land. No matter how much you believe it works, it doesn't, not in the rhelm of conventional science. And once again, where's the science that supports it, and where's the independent testing and actual figures?

No figures, no theory, no science.

Edit: Done with this one; my original writeup hasn't been refuted in any way and its based on sound science. Anyone crossing this thread, enjoy.

I agree. Im out. another 20 or so years and Im in mayberry