Some thoughts on HHO - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-29-2008, 07:18 PM   #21
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_JoeBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 698
Country: United States
The coal (and it's relative, the wood) gas generator...there's an interesting fuel source...shows up in Mother Earth News magazine from time to time...only wish it didn't take up so much room (of course, living as I do in the desert, it wouldn't do me much good...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.I.D.E. View Post
Road Warrior, my father landed a P47 at LeBourget (Paris) after his last B17mission, on D-Day june 6th 1944. There were acres of German Kubelwagens (little VW jeep like vehicles like the Thing) next to the airport that had coal gas generators so the vehicles could run on coal.

The Germans were desperate for any means of creating fuel substitutes. I thing you can understand this. Browns gas has been around for at least 100 years before WW2.

The Me 162 Comet
The Walther Uboats
The V2

Some of their Very dangerous alternative fuel type machines.

regards
gary
__________________

__________________
"We are forces of chaos and anarchy. Everything they say we are we are, and we are very proud of ourselves!" -- Jefferson Airplane

Dick Naugle says: 1. Prepare food fresh. 2. Serve customers fast. 3. Keep place clean.



GasSavers_JoeBob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 04:30 AM   #22
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_BEEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,831
quadancer,

are you starting to see my point? all of these companies and all of these people are talking about doubling your mileage but when it comes to hard evidence, they have none or maybe a comparison with a half mile run. I can make my car get 22MPG in a half mile and then turn around and hypermile that half mile and get low to mid 40s. that is their trick, that is how they suck people in.

Is it possible to make hydrogen and oxygen out of water? yes it's chemistry at its best. can you do it efficiently enough to show a gain in your car? I guess time will tell. I doubt very seriously that if someone got gains from it that they will "DOUBLE" your gas mileage.

still waiting for the infamous gas log
__________________

__________________
Be the change you wish to see in the world
--Mahatma Gandhi



GasSavers_BEEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 05:19 AM   #23
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 30
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to MiddleMike
Quote:
Originally Posted by friz View Post
Well if it worked I think all of the large fleet operators would be doing it. When I see a sticker on the side of a UPS truck stating that it is running on Brown's Gas I will follow suit.
That's a reasonable position for the most part. But, one always has to keep in mind that the masses are not always right. It's akin to stating that "I'll believe that the sun is the center of the solar system when I see astrologers changing their maps to reflect that viewpoint, they have a vested interest in astronomical accuracy after all".

But still, yeah, when money is a motivator you'd think that something more economical would catch on pretty quick.

That said, why aren't most UPS fleet vehicle drivers being instructed on employing the "safer" hypermiling techniques, which clearly work for enchancing mpg by a good margin? They clearly drive their trucks like they drive their cars, which is like everybody else, which is inefficiently as possible.

Meh, just taking both sides of the conversation and rolling them around in my brain a bit, lol.
MiddleMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 05:25 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 114
Country: United States
UPS drivers cannot drive their trucks for FE. If they did, you'd get your package in 6 days instead of 3. Having a friend who drives, he's had to quit at 9pm (starts at 7am) because that's the limit UPS allows. Delivering 300 packages to 280 destinations in 10 hours is no small feat.
almightybmw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 05:45 AM   #25
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 30
Country: United States
Send a message via Yahoo to MiddleMike
Quote:
Originally Posted by almightybmw View Post
UPS drivers cannot drive their trucks for FE. If they did, you'd get your package in 6 days instead of 3. Having a friend who drives, he's had to quit at 9pm (starts at 7am) because that's the limit UPS allows. Delivering 300 packages to 280 destinations in 10 hours is no small feat.
They can take minor steps, like not mashing the accelerator like they were in a car race, or traveling the PSL at all times. Nothing earth shattering, yet I see no educational attempts (maybe there are some, and they by and large ignore them, who knows?).

I'm not for or against HHO, I know nothing about it really, it's just the 'if it were a good idea everybody would be doing it' argument tends to put too much faith in human rationality and reason. Unfortunately that kind of faith rarely pays off when you examine humans closer than surface level. The moment you deal with more than one human being you enter a world where reason gets thrown out the door at the slightest disagreement or opinion. Wish it weren't so.
MiddleMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 06:12 AM   #26
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
IMO there's the same problem with some of these efficiency devices as there are with "herbal cures"... some of them may work very well, some may not, but because they are to some extent public domain, no company can invest the time and money in testing and certification, when any other company can come along and undercut them with no recourse through the patent and/or copyright system. Ergo only fresh, new ideas are likely to make it into cars and aftermarket products, because they have patentable and protectable aspects.

When us grunts have done all the legwork, and accumulated enough data, empirical and otherwise, about particular devices and methods, such that implementation in a product would cost a negligible amount, because all the performance criteria have been hashed out and all that's needed is to write a spec, plug the right numbers in, and have the design jump right out.... then this sort of stuff might start appearing in commercial products. This would be because there would be no large risk or outlay involved at that point that would disadvantage you WRT to a competitor.

Even though HHO might seem like a really neat trick, there are still HUGE problems to solve as regards practicality for the non-experimenter, non-handyman, non-thinking member of the general populace.
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 07:06 PM   #27
Registered Member
 
quadancer@bellsouth.net's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Amen. Joe dropwrench could have a lawsuit on you in a New York minnit when he knocks off a tube and his cigarette fries his face or something. Another problem I see is that my V-8 will probably require a dual-edge MAP sensor enhancer, but my wife can't be depended on to do more than what she allready knows. Go and stop. So these things will have to be idiotproofed, safety-factored, cost-effective, and mileage proven in respect to engine damage. As you said, WE take the initial risks, do the experimentation, legwork, and cash outlay.
Say I own a fleet of trucks. Do I really want to risk my engines and possible replacements on an unproven, untested (on a large scale), uncertain product that produces explosive gases and puts them over my engines in little vinyl tubes? The average corporate owner would sneer in derision at this IMO.
I should start collecting the posts and videos I've seen where guys are claiming success with these. There are actually quite a few out there, and I'll be the first to say that some of these guys are high-siding their claims. As I said, I can't see how every one of these guys are lying. They'd have more to gain by telling the truth and getting help with their units. Of course, don't believe anyone who is selling them; they may lie.
__________________
$1000.00 in parts can save you HUNDREDS in gas!
quadancer@bellsouth.net is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2008, 07:34 PM   #28
Supporting Member
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,779
Country: United States
R.I.D.E. -

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.I.D.E. View Post
Road Warrior, my father landed a P47 at LeBourget (Paris) after his last B17mission, on D-Day june 6th 1944. There were acres of German Kubelwagens (little VW jeep like vehicles like the Thing) next to the airport that had coal gas generators so the vehicles could run on coal.

The Germans were desperate for any means of creating fuel substitutes. I thing you can understand this. Browns gas has been around for at least 100 years before WW2.

The Me 162 Comet
The Walther Uboats
The V2

Some of their Very dangerous alternative fuel type machines.

regards
gary
I don't think it was called Brown's Gas in WWII. I *appears* that the first "engine application" happened in 1935 :

Browns Gas / HHO History
http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgashistory.html
Quote:
1935 - Henry Garrett patented an electrolytic carburetor. He made a car run on water.

1962 - William A. Rhodes (USA) is the first inventor known to patent an electrolyzer that produced the simple 'single-ducted' gas we now call Brown's Gas . In the mid 1960's Mr. Rhodes formed a company (Henes Corp.) with partners who took control of the operation and cut him out. This was a bad mistake, because they did not yet have Mr. Rhodes most efficient design.Henes Corp. eventually failed, went through several hands and was eventually acquired by Dennis McMurray. The company, now named Arizona Hydrogen , is doing well in Phoenix Arizona USA .

1974 - Ten years after William Rhodes patents, Yull Brown (originally a Bulgarian Student named Ilya Velbov 1922-1998) from Australia filed a patent on his design of a Browns Gas electrolyzer and spent the rest of his life trying to make Brown's Gas a commercial success. He (convinced others) to spent about 30 million dollars and nearly 30 years in this endeavor. Due to his lifelong effort, he is posthumously honored by continuing to call the gas Brown's Gas .Several companies were started, both in cooperation and in competition with Yull Brown. Due to his efforts this variety of hydrogen gas is called (Yull ) Brown's Gas.

"THE DISCOVERY OF BROWN'S GAS" Born in 1922 in Bulgaria, Yull Brown went to Australia in 1958 as an electrical engineer with a deep belief that Jules Verne?s vision of "There is fire in water", could be realized. He worked as an unknown laboratory technician until he could develop his own laboratory. By 1978 Professor Brown was being described by The Australian Post as "the most talked about inventor in Australia today". He "discovered" in the early 1970's a proprietary method of water electrolysis that yields a nonexplosive mixture of hydrogen and oxygen gas in the precise atom-to-atom ratio of two volumes of hydrogen to one volume of oxygen. Professor Yull Brown disco vered that hydrogen and oxygen gas can be safely mixed (plus or minus 5 percent) if that ration is strictly maintained. The result is Brown's Gas, a hydrogen and oxygen mixture that can be economically generated, compressed, and used safely. In Professor Brown's process, the hydrogen and oxygen gases are immediately and intimately mixed at exactly the right ratio (the scientific term is "stoichiometric mix"). Brown's Gas is produced within an electrolysis cell, without membranes and with safety, invented by Professor Brown.
Attachment 1303

Sooooooo, I don't think the U-Boat analogy is a good one.

PS - Oh yeah, the Comet's P-Stoff and C-Stoff, a deadly combination :

Rocket Fuels - Liquid Fuels used in the 109-509 Series Motors
http://www.walter-rockets.i12.com/design/fuels.htm


CarloSW2
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	electrolyzer_patent.gif
Views:	171
Size:	11.5 KB
ID:	1111  
__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :

What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp
cfg83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 05:41 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6
Country: United States
Hi
New guy here. Interesting discussion. I used to follow the yahoo water car and hydroxy boards. I haven't been reading them in a while, but it seems like back a year or so ago the consensus was that hydroxy could supplement an ICE only with some modification. If I remember right there is an adjustable sensor or a workaround to the increase of fuel. Another development that was being studied was the use of water and h202 along with hydroxy. The hydroxy was generated and was bubbled into a mixture of distilled water and H202. That mixture acted as a storage vehicle for the hydroxy. The mixture was placed into a jar that was teed to the pcv line. Under throttle the hydroxy vapor was sucked into the intake and combusted. No engine modification was needed. Now some folks were claiming an increase in millage, others none. Not sure if the testing proved anything solid. Water injection has been a round for years and some claims of increased millage may be attributed to the cleaning of the water. Older vehicles often increase in mpg if the intake and combustion surfaces are cleaned of carbon.

Of course you have the total hydrogen car built by Stan Meyers, the research by Bob Boyce and Daniel Dingle. They are at one time or another purported to have produced a car/ice that ran on 100% electrolysis produced hydroxy. The Stan Meyers set up is what is being researched the most.

I recently was told about the product linked below. I believe it works along the same principle as the water injection. It is supposedly some sort of nano technology. They are claiming a 4oz bottle will treat 150 gallons. The result is supposed to be an average of 18% millage increase. The product retails for $26.00/bottle. I have no affiliation with the product or it's distribution. Just thought it might be of interest because of the water involved.
Glad to take part
Brad

http://www.fuellegacy.com
__________________
1986 B2000
1973 landcruiser
Chevy 3/4 and 1-ton trucks
brad54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 10:16 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 41
Country: United States
come back to earth....this is ground control!!!!

I'm getting 2-3 miles mpg....whose the idiot telling you guys there's a 50% increase?

I should take a picture of the plugs I just pulled out....beautiful. Common sense says "no emissions" mean something complete and powerful is happening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoadWarrior View Post
IMO there's the same problem with some of these efficiency devices as there are with "herbal cures"... some of them may work very well, some may not, but because they are to some extent public domain, no company can invest the time and money in testing and certification, when any other company can come along and undercut them with no recourse through the patent and/or copyright system. Ergo only fresh, new ideas are likely to make it into cars and aftermarket products, because they have patentable and protectable aspects.

When us grunts have done all the legwork, and accumulated enough data, empirical and otherwise, about particular devices and methods, such that implementation in a product would cost a negligible amount, because all the performance criteria have been hashed out and all that's needed is to write a spec, plug the right numbers in, and have the design jump right out.... then this sort of stuff might start appearing in commercial products. This would be because there would be no large risk or outlay involved at that point that would disadvantage you WRT to a competitor.

Even though HHO might seem like a really neat trick, there are still HUGE problems to solve as regards practicality for the non-experimenter, non-handyman, non-thinking member of the general populace.
__________________

cugir321 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A shot with a mix... GasSavers_SD26 Diesels 23 03-13-2008 06:20 PM
Air scoop for mpg? ZugyNA Experiments, Modifications and DIY 10 12-05-2007 10:40 AM
Are you a believer in Peak Oil theory? Peakster General Discussion (Off-Topic) 47 12-01-2007 06:49 PM
BIG car Andy-Paul Transmissions and Running Gear 30 10-24-2007 02:25 PM
FFI GasSavers_MPGmaker Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 39 05-30-2006 04:31 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.