Yeah we all know its a scam

[gone-ot]

Whether the *added* energy comes from H2 itself or from it's benefits to combustion is simply swamped-out by two HUGE facts most HHO scammers ignore:

1) The energy *cost* of creating H2 -- ie: % = P.out/P.in -- because it takes MORE energy to disassociate H20 into H2 and O2 than you gain, consuming MORE gasoline in the process of generating the DC-current used in the process.

2) The energy *cost* of creating H2, ie: gasoline is FAR less costly than H2.

[P-hack]

The other really annoying thing is that many insist on a bunch of other changes to make HHO "work", fooling the ECU to get the timing and mixture you want, adding heat to the fuel and air, etc. Without benchmarking the effects of each change and various permutations under various loads/rpms, it just looks like stone soup (HHO is the stone in that scenario).

[user removed]

Don't talk me to death brother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
Just get a couple of bottles of the gases in question.
Pipe them into your intake manifold, or wherever you like , and measure the gain in power produced, or fuel mileage, pick yer poision.

The sad attempt to combine one with the other when they can easily be separated and analyzed, with any gains clearly defined, smacks of a disingenuous argument, fallacy, and prefidity.

Oh yes, in Virginia, the LAW requires you to pass the same emissions testing that the vehicle originally was subjected to when manufactured, which was why, when I RODE AROUND WITH A COUPLE OF PEOPLE SELLING THE SYSTEMS, they only tried to sell them to diesel truck customers. The ones that had no emissions inspections when new.

Or just watch the 60 minutes segment where the installation was done professionally and tested profesionally with no measurable gain.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by P-hack

The other really annoying thing is that many insist on a bunch of other changes to make HHO "work", fooling the ECU to get the timing and mixture you want, adding heat to the fuel and air, etc. Without benchmarking the effects of each change and various permutations under various loads/rpms, it just looks like stone soup (HHO is the stone in that scenario).

There are conditions to be met. Otherwise, the addition of HHO is inconsequential.

If a combustible mixture has a sub-critical condition for detonation and is ignited, it does not gain efficiency in comparison to "cooler" mixtures. However, with the seeding of HHO, it does gain a small, but measurable amount of efficiency. So? What would your conclusion have to be?

The problem with this whole discussion is the lack of actual experimentation on the part of the forum members and the lack of understanding by those who come into the forum trumpeting the virtues of HHO.

The chasm between the two sides is massive and obvious.

Forum members simply are not going to "stoop so low" to do experimentation on an "obviously useless" idea. HHO proponents are crazy zealots for the most part and naive researchers at the best. Because of the complexity of the subject as well as the high costs of testing compared to simple mass or aerodynamic improvements, we could be forever stuck bantering back and forth.

[Frank Lee]

You're a forum member, why not prove HHO?

[P-hack]

I don't know about "stoop so low", there is also the ongoing maintenance of adding water/electrolyte (and keeping it from freezing and properly evaluating the short and long term effects of antifreeze, -16F today) to consider as well. If I had a dyno, and a megasquirt, I might experiment with it and a bottle of O2 and H2 (and a steam generator). I might do a whole lot of other experiments too But by and large the zealous conclusions and claims preceded the proper quantification of procedures and results, that is what HHO, in the common vernacular, has become.

Allthough one potential practical application I really like for HHO is a homemade hydrogen torch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-lCqcT3i0I

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

1) The energy *cost* of creating H2 -- ie: % = P.out/P.in -- because it takes MORE energy to disassociate H20 into H2 and O2 than you gain, consuming MORE gasoline in the process of generating the DC-current used in the process.

Nope. Specious and non sequitur. It is not a closed system.

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

2) The energy *cost* of creating H2, ie: gasoline is FAR less costly than H2.

Interestingly (IIRC, I may be able to dig up the article) in the 1970's NASA took and old station wagon and basically hooked a cat cracking unit to the intake. Passed the vaporized gas over hot rocks reducing the long chains to short and increasing the amount of H2. They proved their point (pollution control I think). This way you can have gasoline and make H2 at the same time.

[drrbc]

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut

There are conditions to be met. Otherwise, the addition of HHO is inconsequential.

If a combustible mixture has a sub-critical condition for detonation and is ignited, it does not gain efficiency in comparison to "cooler" mixtures. However, with the seeding of HHO, it does gain a small, but measurable amount of efficiency. So? What would your conclusion have to be?

The problem with this whole discussion is the lack of actual experimentation on the part of the forum members and the lack of understanding by those who come into the forum trumpeting the virtues of HHO.

The chasm between the two sides is massive and obvious.

Forum members simply are not going to "stoop so low" to do experimentation on an "obviously useless" idea. HHO proponents are crazy zealots for the most part and naive researchers at the best. Because of the complexity of the subject as well as the high costs of testing compared to simple mass or aerodynamic improvements, we could be forever stuck bantering back and forth.

Rusty,

Firstly, I'm assuming we really are talking about real honest-to-God, on-demand, made-on-th-spot, YouTubin', bubblers and baking soda HHO/Brown's Gas- and NOT O2 & H2 mixed out of the bottles, right?

And if we are are, can you give us some hints as to in what conditions we should look for improvement?

Thanks

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by drrbc

Rusty,

Firstly, I'm assuming we really are talking about real honest-to-God, on-demand, made-on-th-spot, YouTubin', bubblers and baking soda HHO/Brown's Gas- and NOT O2 & H2 mixed out of the bottles, right?

And if we are are, can you give us some hints as to in what conditions we should look for improvement?

Thanks

It's all there.

And my generators are from a line of industrial units my company designed and builds. This is not bottled gas. But, neither is it these inefficient YouTube designs. And no, I don't mean so efficient they exceed unity.

[drrbc]

You're saying
1. Beyond the scope of a DIY "tinkerer"
2. Yes, it works (and could give a 10-15% improvement), but only in a limited RPM band.
3. Every different vehicle would need its own "tune" even with a standard unit.

Well that would just be too much work and time, dammit. I want free energy! I want freedom from the Automobile/Big Oil conspiracy. I want to drive my truck and laugh at you people driving those little rice burners. I want someone else to buy my food and pay for my healthcare. And I want it NOW! I deserve it!

NUTS!
(General A.C. McAuliff
Bastogne, Belgium
December 22, 1944)