Oh Boy - a Hydrogen generator for our Diesels..

[hammersley]

How can we pass this up :-laf



Dodge Cummins 35% to 50% Better MPG's & Power

 

[TAbbott]

Well, I'm pretty sure that system will produce "between 0 and 60% improvement" just like the guy claims. Too bad I already spent my $600. 00 government stimulus check... . oh well.

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I do believe that *well thought out and engineered* systems may well be of benefit - unfortunately, if/as these setups attract interest, LOTS of fly-by-night opportunists will hit the scene with cheap and poorly made JUNK that either WON'T work - or will work so poorly as to cast a shadow over ones that ARE well designed and made...

 

[betterthanstock]

"We don't need no education"...



The guys and gals goofing off in physics and chemistry class, are the ones buying the systems.



I've even seen a statement on youtube that went something like "yeah, there's a lot of brainpower working on this, and we'll make it work one day. "



To be honest, there are applications, such as extra lean burn gasoline engines, with inside the cylinder plasma generators (arvin-meritor is working on one), that can get up to 20% fuel improvement at part throttle. Almost as good as a diesel.



And the same goof-offs, who don't need math, have been taken in the mortgage interest scam...

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

"We don't need no education"...



The guys and gals goofing off in physics and chemistry class, are the ones buying the systems.



I've even seen a statement on youtube that went something like "yeah, there's a lot of brainpower working on this, and we'll make it work one day. "



To be honest, there are applications, such as extra lean burn gasoline engines, with inside the cylinder plasma generators (arvin-meritor is working on one), that can get up to 20% fuel improvement at part throttle. Almost as good as a diesel.



And the same goof-offs, who don't need math, have been taken in the mortgage interest scam...

Don't laugh TOO hard until you see the results of a couple in trial on THIS board by guys regarded as honest and trustworthy.



Of course, if you are of the "MY minds already made up - don't confuse me with facts" mindset, there's absolutely NO proof likely to change your opinion...

 

[betterthanstock]

Don't laugh TOO hard until you see the results of a couple in trial on THIS board by guys regarded as honest and trustworthy.



Of course, if you are of the "MY minds already made up - don't confuse me with facts" mindset, there's absolutely NO proof likely to change your opinion...

So far all the proof I have seen was one guy on youtube topping off his tank, then driving like 30 miles, topping off again and saying, see my mileage is up by whatever percent. On a short drive, the battery could be disconnected from the generator, so it won't put extra work on the engine. Also, fuel dilates as it warms up, so it will always show less fuel used if you top off a hot fuel tank, than if you wait until the car cools down.



I will believe when I see a test of more than 1000 miles from a respected member.

 

[betterthanstock]

All right Gary, I found the first HONEST review on you tube.



YouTube - Hydrogen Generator HHO installed and running in Car, Part II



What did I tell ya?

1. Uses a separate battery recharged from the wall.

2. tampered with the O2 sensors to lean out the fuel and got 2-3 better mpg. There is software to tamper with most gassers ECM to improve mpg 2-3 mpg.

3. Observed NO improvement, but WILL build a BIGGER system. Way to go!

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

I will believe when I see a test of more than 1000 miles from a respected member.

Then stick around - and don't make TOO many statements you're not prepared to eat... :-laf



But then, if YouTube is your standard of quality as far as "proof" is concerned... :-laf

 

[betterthanstock]

Then stick around - and don't make TOO many statements you're not prepared to eat... :-laf

I've got my sleeves rolled up, and my bib on, which words do I have to eat?



There are guys on this forum that put 1000 miles /day (myself included about once a year). Lend one such device to one of those guys, and they'll pay you its weight in silver if it works.





Here's the truth:

YouTube - No, you can't run your car on water - it's a scam

 

[Bob V]

BTS, give up, it doesn't matter how many time you PROVE them wrong they just say we are stupid for not believing. Physics just don't apply to some people. Gary I showed you this twice Water-fuelled car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,or here The Myth of the Water-Fueled Car - MythBusters.com , is it better that you tube? This is all FACTS. Again, when people are doing a fuel mileage test they tend to drive “nicer” then they normally do, so one or two tanks will tell us much.

 

[betterthanstock]

To all those who want to believe that this works, do this:



Take a 2 liter plastic bottle, 2 stainless hose clamps.

Punch 2 holes in the walls of bottle near top.

Insert the two straightened out clamps long enough to reach the bottom, making sure they don't touch.

Hook up a jumper cable to battery, or if you wish to the cigarette lighter, so you can unplug it.



Hook a hose over bottle top to air filter inlet opening.



Put a 20 amp fuse if you use the lighter.

Fill the bottle with water and add a spoon of baking soda.



Adjust the distance between the electrodes and/or the concentration of baking soda until you get 20-30 amps. Use nylon tie straps if needed between the two electrodes to keep them at the right distance, and prevent a short.



Duct tape the holes around electrodes, and around hose if it's loose.



Start engine.



Drive to gas station and fill up.



Reset odometer.



Get on freeway and set cruise at 70 mph.



Drive until low fuel light dings on.



Stop and refill. Eat lunch if desired. Don' forget to unplug the bottle while stopped. Add water if needed.



Reconnect cables to water bottle.



Drive back at 70 mph until you get near home.



Fill up and report to us the mileage.



You can hook up an ampmeter inside the cab to monitor what it's doing if you desire.



I forgot to say, this will generate a lot of heat. so to prevent water boiling, place the bottle where it has alot of cooling air (like tied in front of the grille).

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

. Gary I showed you this twice Water-fuelled car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ,or here The Myth of the Water-Fueled Car - MythBusters.com , is it better that you tube? This is all FACTS. Again, when people are doing a fuel mileage test they tend to drive “nicer” then they normally do, so one or two tanks will tell us much.

AND, haven't YOU noticed that not *ONE* of the examples they quote and criticise, comes even CLOSE to the design and construction of the setups being currently kicked around on TDR?



This one in Mythbusters came close, when they admit:

It may even be possible, sometime in the future, to buy a so-called "water-fueled" car that directly uses electrolysis to split water into its component hydrogen and oxygen before burning it to provide energy.

Notice, they say "water fueled" - which is an obvious smokescreen, since NO ONE here is talking about "burning water", but rather, electrically SEPARATING the Hydrogen and Oxygen FROM it's combined form, into gasses that will burn or assist the burning of gasoline or diesel fuel - the "electrolysis" they grudgingly refer to, and admit may be on the horizon.



Don't get me wrong - I've carefully avoided direct and all out acceptance of these setups - I'm a skeptic too, but see at least some evidence that even with the relatively crude setups being offered and tested, there DOES seem to be measurable benefit. *I* don't like the taste of Crow either, so I avoid over-the-top denial and criticism of stuff I don't, and never HAVE, had my hands on. Some of the "My mind's made up" critics here would be well advised to adopt a far more open minded response to what's going on!



If even and only a 2 MPG improvement was gained by one of these gadgets, that would be roughly 60 miles per tank - at an average price of $4. 75 per gallon for diesel, that would be a reduction in fuel cost of nearly $15 per tank. At a tank a week, that's over $50 a month - for a year - do the math!



Yeah, I'm skeptical, especially on the higher MPG claims - but if even a 2 MPG improvement is doable, I'll be all over one of these things!



AND, I wouldn't be surprised if YOU were, too, AFTER you finish up that plate of Crow! :-laf

 

[Little Bill]

Facts

The very best commercial water electrolysis units based on catalyzed membrane electrode assemblies (fuel cell technology) require 91 watt-hours (311 BTU) to generate 1 mole (22. 4 liters) of hydrogen.

1 mole of hydrogen produces 230 BTU (67 watt-hours) of energy when burned.

 

[ChrisOlson]

I like turtles

 

[Little Bill]

I like turtles

I LOVE turtles.

 

[Road Dog]

Facts



The very best commercial water electrolysis units based on catalyzed membrane electrode assemblies (fuel cell technology) require 91 watt-hours (311 BTU) to generate 1 mole (22. 4 liters) of hydrogen.



1 mole of hydrogen produces 230 BTU (67 watt-hours) of energy when burned.

Is that energy a theoretical number or is that "burned" in a fuel cell at high efficiency or is that "burned" in an internal combustion engine at 30% efficiency? Just curious.

 

[Little Bill]

Is that energy a theoretical number or is that "burned" in a fuel cell at high efficiency or is that "burned" in an internal combustion engine at 30% efficiency? Just curious.

The 91 watt-hours to make it comes from a cell running ~70% efficiency. All the amps are making H2 and O2 but the voltage is some mVs above theoretical, thus the overall efficiency is depressed. In my business we break this into 2 components, current efficiency (Faradays to chemical equivalents) and power consumption (kW-hours/metric ton).



The 230 BTUs produced comes from the standard gas combustion tables. It does not come from ICM testing where only 30% of the heat energy is converted into rotational energy.



Thanks for that question. I've been trying to maintain this string of discussions at the 30,000 foot view to try to clearly illustrate the basic inadequacies of these scam HHO units. When you really dig in and look at the entire picture of the losses of converting diesel to rotational power to electric generation to HHO generation to convertion back to rotational power (some of which goes back to electric generation to carry on this parasitic energy drain), it gets pretty scary.



Like they say, 'Your mileage may vary'. Geez, why hasn't Al Gore endorsed these technological wonders ?

 

[FDNYMOPARGUY]

I'm one of the guinea pigs who has tried this. On a 1986 Plymouth Caravelle (long K car). I went from 25-26 mpg to 30-31 mpg. Not the 25-75% increased that was claimed, but a respectable 20%. Haven't applied the technology to the mighty Power Wagon yet.

 

[betterthanstock]

I'm one of the guinea pigs who has tried this. On a 1986 Plymouth Caravelle (long K car). I went from 25-26 mpg to 30-31 mpg. Not the 25-75% increased that was claimed, but a respectable 20%. Haven't applied the technology to the mighty Power Wagon yet.

All right, for how long, and are you still using it and maintaining a fill-up log to show any long term? Did you modify the oxygen sensor at all (I don't know if they had fuel injected throttle body, or carburetor in 86), and also is it plumbed into the manifold into the vacuum side, as opposed into the air cleaner box?

Why does it matter? A lot of installers lean out the Oxygen sensor. They say it is to compensate for the extra oxygen produced, but that is not true, because for every extra O molecule, there are 2 H molecules, so it needs no compensation to maintain correct A/F ratio. The second method is, they lean out the air by bleeding in extra air into the manifold thru the HHO container.

Both of those will slightly raise mileage, especially on an engine that has an old oxygen sensor that no longer goes into open loop mode, and stays rich all the time. If the car has an oxygen sensor, and it is that old, replace it, as it probably no longer works. Those cars do not light up the "check engine" or generate codes when that happens.

 

[FDNYMOPARGUY]

So far I've done 3 tanks of fuel/water. I kept records on mileage before the conversion and always top off the tank for as much accuracy as possible. So far I have not modified the O2 sensor. The car is throttle body injected. I plumbed the HHO directly into the intake manifold. First I used a 1/4 inch line, than moved up to a 3/8 inch line. The car is currently out of service for a failed timing belt. I should have it fixed by next week. So far I'm happy with the results. Tell me more about your operation.