test results back from hydrogen

Maybe it's just me, but I've seen too many first-person testimonials expounding the benefits of everything from Ganes air needles to Fish carburetors, and they all doubled their mileage. Where are they now? Surely, if Chrysler, say, could get twice the mileage out of their entire fleet for the addition of a bit of wire and a jam jar, they'd do it and put the hurt on all those ricers flooding the world?
A buddy hooked up one of these setups on a Mazda pickup. He claimed a notable increase in mileage, but he drove it easier after the installation. One cool morning, he gave it the gas and she backfired. The flame front went up the line and blew the fruit jar all to smithereens.If you are going to try this, put a check valve in the line!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dago Red

Maybe it is against the law, but to anybody thinknig about doing it I'd like to say that I personally believe the government, gas companies and auto manufacturers are all in bed together and that our cars are capable of much better gas milage if there wasn't so much profit in it.

I'm interested in the plans, if I can bump my car from 13-14 mpg up to 25mpg it's totally worth having to take the stuff off every two years to pass smog.

I'd be really interested in seeing what it does to the big engines putting out more horsepower, as far as increasing mileage without hurting horsepower or damaging the engine. I don't suppose anybody with a dyno could give this setup a test for us? maybe write in to powerblock's horsepower show?

Thanks for researching it.

Red

---

Fractioning water using electrolyses is neither breaking the law nor is it patentable anymore. Until congress passes a law outlawing water in any case. I would like to make a couple points about all this;

1) Very little if any of this stuff is patentable thanks in no small part to a fellow named Bob Boyce. What may be patentable are oscillators and eltronics needed to optimize performance of cells and ECU's in modern cars.
2) If you try to just puff HHO down a newer car with an ECU and SFI it is likely to burn more fuel. You must retune the ECU especially in the areas of the oxygen sensor for this to work right. Meanwhile carbed cars should see immediate results.
3) What HHO really does as an additive is improve combustion efficiency. The argument that that it 'uses more energy than it creates' is true only for the fractioning process itself. One needs to carry the physics process through all the way to see benefits. I believe it can work and save you money.
4) The better HHO systems seem to use as many as 6-7 cells in series to maximize operating efficiency
5) It takes 6-7 large cells or a single good sized high voltage cell to operate a V8 entirely on HHO. But now the timing must be severely retarded (say from 8-10 BTDC to 8-10 ATDC) for it to work so earlier V8's with carbs and older adjustable ignitions are better here.
6) Running just HHO will lead to rusted steel components throughout and very likely burned valves as fuel is normally used to manage those temps
7) HHO is extremely dangerous stuff. Unlike gasoline it will not burn, it explodes as hydrogen is allready completely broken down. I think many people will be hurt with many occurences of hearing damage due to the explosions it can create personally.

Well, there you go, some food for thought.

Kitz

Shawnlee28 wrote:

Quote:

---

Just remember ,its a Federal crime to manufacture fuel and not pay taxes ,its also a federal law to burn non taxed fuel on a public highway .....

---

Perhaps, but at this point I say screw 'em. Been paying taxes for 46 years and have watched the feds waste it on all kinds of bullshit. From welfare here to welfare in foreign lands where they don't give a flying fish about us. :mad:

I'm not much of a risk taker, but this might be the time to get involved with something progressive. Decreasing my gas use and increasing my mpg without resorting to riding a donkey to work could figure into my life plans. :LOL: :LOL:

Keep the good news and data coming Mooneye!

mooneye777, any chance you can post a picture of how the gas gets into the carb or in the case of the Saturn the air inlet box? Looking at the picture I see most of the construction from PVC pipe and clear tubing. The vertical tubing on the side is just a "sight glass" to see how much water is in there and the + connection from the battery is the source of the current flow. I suppose the blue wire is the ground wire but cannot see how it is attached in the back of the cell. The clear tubing seems to go directly into the air box of the FI system and the tubing is fairly long which might (????) give a check valve a chance to close in the case of a backfire but gas explosions are incredibly fast so a longer tube with a check valve might be a better idea, but that check valve better be FAST!!!!! I also see water droplets in the tube to the air box which might be just from vibration of the cell so it might also be a good idea to have a trap in the inlet line to catch such water AND to act as a bubbler check valve and partial flame arrester in the case of a backfire. As mentioned above, it is unlikely that anyone can get further patents on such a system but I can assure you the folks at HHO have access to at least one "attack lawyer" so I am trying to be careful to mention that this is a good idea that might possibly be made practical with some added safety features. Since the big boys will all have their own lawyers we are just talking about home made devices in the hot rod tradition of innovations for our own use. What the heck is the black nipple on top? Maybe that is a sping loaded check valve for adding water to the cell? I cannot figure out where to get one of those but if I were to build one of these devices I would add a FAST, SENSITIVE check valve at the inlet to the air box and a bubbler water trap at about the middle of the tube so that there is time for a check valve to react to a backfire pressure change. Of course for legal purposes I do not take any responsibility for the safety of these suggestions and folks like mooneye777 can experiment and maybe tell us what happens. I note that there is one patent already for a water bubbler, and it looks like the mimimum sort of check valve for safety but really a check valve is needed that is extremely fast and sensitve to reverse pressure so it can close before the flame front reaches the cell. If the check valve is moved closer to the cell in the line that might allow more time for the valve to close but then the gas in the line up to the valve will still explode. Another good idea is that with such a small cell as shown, the amount of HHO is small for "only a small explosion" but who needs the hood blown off their vehicle? Thanks R. Pope for the story about the back-fire problem!

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

1st- mooneyes, did you compare aqua net hairspray as well in the spud gun tests? I had a spud gun before they were made illegal here, very nice one too, push button instead of the twist igniter. I used the aqua net because it was dirt cheap and worked great. loaned it to a friend and a cop busted it when he caught him with it.

2nd- pope, come on man, the car companies are all capable of making their cars get better gas mileage, they don't because it isn't profitable in the overall scheme of things, and they're all in collusion together, big gas, big auto, big brother. How did honda make the engine in the civic 15hp higher (wife has an 07) and yet it gets better gas mileage than before? hmmm.....how can it be that my 472 in my 69' caddy got the same kind of gas mileage that my 4.0l v6 in my explorer got? hmmmm.....anybody hear the kind of profit the gas companies are making??!!!!!!!!! while we get bent over every time we stop at the pump. I got gas this morning, I still can't walk right.

Red

Isnt a bong supposed to have wine instead of water?....oops

You can't 'test' something like this by driving it around and calculating milage, there are too many variables. The number one being the person behind the wheel modulating the throttle and other's being atmospheric pressure, wind, traffic, what roads you're driving, etc.

Put it on a dyno and watch the BSFC. That's the only legitimate test.

I'd love to see exactly how much hydrogen an alternator can create. :rolleyes:

heres the picture Don, It does simply just go into the air box. I do not think it would explode in a violent manor as Mr. Pope has said. There is only about a 6 ounce area for the gas to form. The condensation in the tube is moisture from the water changing into gas and breaking back down on its long travel through the tube. But it only used 4 ounces of water in 12 hours of driving before I shot the picture, so not alot of water is being used either. I saw a box hydrogenator at a scrap yard today that was in a semi, His tank was the size of 6 industrial truck batteries, It exploded not in the truck, but at a shop when someone tried to tack weld a clamp to the case without draining the gases inside. They said it was loud but only split a seam about 7 inches and made the welder crap his pants. And that was remember the size of 6 industrial truck batteries.

And yes I tried hair spray, 4 brands, ether, deoderant, lighter fluid, propane. and right guard was the winner. use the sport, because it smells the best after burnt for the ride home in a trunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maricopa

You can't 'test' something like this by driving it around and calculating milage, there are too many variables. The number one being the person behind the wheel modulating the throttle and other's being atmospheric pressure, wind, traffic, what roads you're driving, etc.

Put it on a dyno and watch the BSFC. That's the only legitimate test.

I'd love to see exactly how much hydrogen an alternator can create. :rolleyes:

---

The driver was the owner of the vehicles, before during and after. I dont care if you have a 40 mph wind running sraight up your butt, you could not have a 12 to 15 mpg improvement if the car was sitting on jackstands. Be realistic people, The cars were driven the same way last week as they were the year before and the 40 years before that. they were not driven esspecially for testing purposses, only as daily driving as ussual, same roads, same traffic, same time day and night,

My uncle did just recently put a kit version of this on his '01 S10. his kit came out of Canada but I don't exactly know where. he also had some white power that was mixed with the water. it claimed 30% increse... if you really think about it, on an EFI car, with little bit of HHO going into the engine, that will richen the mixture just a little and the 02 sensor will read that and lean the mixture accordingly, thus using less fuel

Now, how could one tweak the system a bit and create a vapor other then HHO going into the air box???? Maybe a bit of nitro or something??? I'm certainly no chemist, and I don't suppose vapors are vapors, but if it works with gasoline and water...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooneye777

The driver was the owner of the vehicles, before during and after. I dont care if you have a 40 mph wind running sraight up your butt, you could not have a 12 to 15 mpg improvement if the car was sitting on jackstands. Be realistic people, The cars were driven the same way last week as they were the year before and the 40 years before that. they were not driven esspecially for testing purposses, only as daily driving as ussual, same roads, same traffic, same time day and night,

---

The only way you could accurately test would be to not let the driver know you were testing, amongst other things. The driver will get a light foot knowing he is testing for mileage. Not saying or doubting that it works, there is just a ton of things to consider.

mooneye 777 could you tell me were to get the plans to make one like you have i would like to give it a shot . thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTruckDriver

The only way you could accurately test would be to not let the driver know you were testing, amongst other things. The driver will get a light foot knowing he is testing for mileage. Not saying or doubting that it works, there is just a ton of things to consider.

---

It would take a very serious change in driving habits to account for 12-15 mpg increase!!!!! Maybe a few mpg difference from light footing the car...

I'm still curious to see the results on the F-150, got anything yet, Moon?????

Pat, I hope Mooneye777 will answer but here is one I found.

http://www.runyourcarwithwater.com/?hop=opmind

They say the $50 deal is over today. I think I could build one from mooneye777's picture except that I do not know where to get that black inlet nipple and I do not know what the black clamp is on the + wire. Maybe folks on this Forum can discuss the construction some more? Any patent here is covered long ago and I can assure you that the HHO folks have an aggressive lawyer. The HHO idea might be very valuable if the safety aspect can be worked out with a fast check valve. I sure would like to know of any safety improvements because it looks to me that such a device can be made easily except for a fast check valve. I can't help but recall the excitement over the announcement of "Cold Fusion" several years ago when experimental Physicists and Electrochemists all over the world tried intently to reproduce some fabulous claims but it all came to naught although even today there are a few Physicists still trying to further demonstrate Cold Fusion. So I am interested in a few more details, especially that "fill nipple" but I caution folks to not leave the gas leak out for the sake of safety.

Don Shillady
Retired SCientist/teen rodder