Amen. I'm there bro.

maybe i shouldn't have said what i said the way i said it.....being an aircraft mechanic i know probably more than i should about things. i've got so many hours of studying and experimenting with the hydroxy systems over the last 2 weeks. probably more hours into that than my regular job. i fully understand that HHO burns much cleaner and cooler than the regular gas and adjustments 'may' need to be done to my car. i say 'may' because it all depends on the booster i make and how much HHO is produced and delivered to my engines intake. the easiest way i see to find this out is to look for other people who have used a particular booster on a vehicle like the one i have. see what they have done and take it from there. i could and probably will, just make a smack's booster and stick it in my car. drive for several days, see if the computer agrees with it or not and see how my engine runs and sounds. i really think that if my computer has a problem and the engine begins to ping, that i could just drop the amount of HHO going into the engine, rather than installing and fiddling with my o2 sensors and fuel/air mix.

now, i say all of this, not to prove i know what i'm doing, but rather to just try to make a simplistic point just like i tried to sarcastically do in my original post. i agree with 'hdenter' for the most part and his post.

"shouldn't knock something till ya try it"

Rower
We are not getting more energy out than we are putting in.
We are imply converting the electricity produced by the alt. to another form, HHO and using that stored energy to burn the gasoline more efficiently.

This is not perpetual motion, it is simply energy conversion. If YOU picked up a chem book you would see that.

I also have an Engineering background and thoroughly understand physics and thermodynamics and I would love for someone to describe to me how converting mechanical energy from the crank, to electricity at the alternator, to Hydrogen via HHO generator, back to the combustion chamber is not going to lose a tremendous amount of energy in the process? It is perpetual motion in the sense that you think that your engine which is producing Hydrogen and burning the Hydrogen it is producing will ever be a net surplus of energy. That is basically the definition of perpetual motion.

As to the "chemistry" aspect of it. If you want to prove yourself lets see some calculations. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out how much Hydrogen you can produce, how much work is needed to produce it and how much energy is gained by adding Hydrogen to the fuel mixture. If you can answer those three questions, it should be easy to tell if a HHO generator works.

Well im only 17, but let me take a crack at it.

1.
I dont know the exact formula, but the amount of HHO produced is exactly proportional to the wattage introduced. Ill look up this formula later...

2.
Once again, wattage=HHO

3.
Some people report at 30-80% increase in fuel economy.


This reminds me of when my brother learned that when you plug in a DC motor backwards it goes the other way... (He was only 6)
After learning this fact, he theorized that anything plugged in backwards, or manual work applied to it would run in reverse, or produce what went into it, respectively.
It was at this time that, when we went up north for the summer, I found him pushing his ATV in an attempt to create gasoline. I nicely told him (by running him over =P) that gasoline engines, hell, MOST engines dont work in reverse (that being produce gasoline).

But back to now...

What we are evidently doing IS producing gasoline-type-substance (HHO) via a mean that can be... um... brainfart...
Well.
We are turning water into fuel.
Oh, via a mena that can be replicated in any mechanical process. (Windmill, hamsters, dam, etc....)

You see, electricity has a tendency to dissipate after a while, thats why repeaters are necessary, etc, so a viable way to store that energy would be a gas, HHO, that can be either recombusted into electricity or mechanical motion.

Allright, ill shut up now, I have no calculations but hey let these people (and me) work in peace.

And on that note,

PEACE!
-Tyeo

I try
 

[QUOTE=opelgt73;102465]I also have an Engineering background and thoroughly understand physics and thermodynamics and I would love for someone to describe to me how converting mechanical energy from the crank, to electricity at the alternator, to Hydrogen via HHO generator, back to the combustion chamber is not going to lose a tremendous amount of energy in the process?
1.Partially correct. You run your car on gasoline and create energy to power other parts of your car, as the engine turns the alternator also turns and generates electrical current. Enough electrical current is generated to power all the gadgets in your car if they were all turned on at once. So you use a bit of this surplus current and power your hydrogen generator. This makes HHO and it is sucked into your intake manifold to enhance the burn of the gasoline. You are not getting something for nothing. You have to power the generator to make a fuel enhancement, but you are not running your car on hydrogen.You are not using the hydrogen for energy, it is just to enhance the flamefront in the combustion cycle.

It is perpetual motion in the sense that you think that your engine which is producing Hydrogen and burning the Hydrogen it is producing will ever be a net surplus of energy.
Perhaps when we overcome entropy we can dispute this but right now you are absolutely correct. Oddly enough people are getting results to gasoline / diesel engines with HHO generators so regardless of how much science we know there is always more to learn.
.

QUOTE]

Its NOT perpetual motion becuase you are usiing surplus energy from the Alt to convert the hydrogen from water...

These laws of physics that everyone seems to love to go by, do they include the use of electrolytes? We know that with the help of them, HHO gens create more HHO....

Funny, according to the laws of physics bees should not fly...nor should helicopters...

Um... Yea they can, Law of gravity keeps them stable, the laws of aerodynamics and propulsion keep them moving.

As you walk through the forest of life...don't stop to argue with the stumps...talk to the trees?

The assumption that an alternator has surplus energy is questionable.

The alternator varies it's load (and power requirement) based on the state of charge of the battery. If the alternator was continuously creating more amperage than necessary the battery would be overcharged and would soon fail.

In my car the engine slows down as you turn on the turn signals, or any other additional electrical load, until the load sensor increases the idle speed to compensate.

Think of it as tank of water and a small hydro-electric turbine. If you run the small turbine and empty the tank, it takes power to refill the tank.

In an auto electrical system its the same principle, you don't get the HHO for free.

"Run your car on water"

Not really truth in advertizing, especially to those that understand the above fact.

Assuming the HHO enhances the burning of wasted fuel. Thats the HHO proponents best argument. The problem with that is there is not that much wasted fuel, or the unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust would be astronomical.

Put you car on a dyno and see how much more power you use to create HHO.
Then create HHO without using the car as the generator while its on the dyno. Do this by using a different battery not the battery in the car.

The net gain in power (if there is one) will be the increase in efficiency.
No net gain in power or even a loss is a decrease in efficiency.

It's that easy to prove whether it is more or less efficient.

Theory is one thing absolute proof is another altogether.

regards
gary

hdenter, excellent post.

I don't see how anyone can interpret this as prepetual motion, when it is so clearly not? The HHO isn't CREATING energy, but rather releasing the potential energy thats already stored in the gasoline. Consider that up to 30% of gasoline used leaves the engine unused in the exhaust (check me on that, thats just a number I've heard thrown around on the forums.) Why then would something that burns that wasted 30% not make the car more efficent. Its like patching a hole in your gas tank!

I regard the "unburned gas" theory as a BS way of explaining it, yes a tiny % HC are deliberately allowed to remain in the exhaust to heat the cat up so it can get rid of NOx, but we're not talking 30%.

However another BS way of explaining it is to say it doesn't work "because of the first law of Thermodynamics" anyone who says that is using a delicate piece of statistical theory as a blunt instrument and doesn't understand what it really says and where it comes from, how it should be used and what even the thermodynamics of the system is in the first place.

Another BS way of explaining it is that it is vacuum energy, zero point energy, quantum background energy, well 99% of the time it isn't, the smackbooster for example shows no signs of it. That other 1% can drive you nuts.

A correct theory should focus on the thermodynamics of the entire system, IC engine, gasoline, HHO and all... the thermodynamic efficiency of a gasoline IC motor on it's own is friggin' 'orrible. It makes heat rather than torque, you have to throw heat away to get it to run at all and you run it at it's least efficient power output and rpm range. 3/4 of the energy in the gasoline is thrown away in heat. At typical cruise speeds, the burn happens late and slow, giving up 80% of it's energy to the chamber walls, developing peak pressure long after TDC, and failing to develop peak optimum cylinder pressure. Then that 20% of the gasoline's energy you do manage to haphazardly capture to the crank is further reduced by the resistance of the air in the next cylinder trying to force it's way past the throttle plate, aka pumping loss.

So first you have to be aware that putting more load on a motor can increase it's efficiency due to reduced pumping loss. At low load levels, 25% increase in output can be had for 5% increase in fuel consumption. So you've got 25% more energy to play with? Stick it through a HHO cell, and that energy due to inefficiency in the conversion is reduced to 10% of the original output. But already, we're 5% ahead when we put it back into the engine assuming it only burns as efficiently as gasoline However, hydrogen has a very fast flame speed and makes a lot more pressure than gasoline without releasing so much heat, pure H2 motors are 50% efficient, where the limiting factor is the ability of reciprocating pistons to get out of their own way fast enough to capture it. So in minor amounts buffered by other gases it's potentially possible that damn near 100% of the energy in the H2 goes into expansion. Let's split the difference at 75%.

So H2 could be 3x more efficient at burning than gas... so obviously our 10% of original output is actually worth 30% of it.

But.. ignition advance curves are set so conservative that 40% of peak optimum peak cylinder pressure is wasted at 3000 rpm and lower. If the flash of the hydrogen burn speeds up the gasoline burn such that peak cylinder pressure is reached at the optimum time, then the gasoline goes from 25% efficiency to 35% efficiency.

So all in all, for a steady cruise state at around 2000-3000 rpm you've got your original 30 mpg say minus 5% more usage plus 30% more efficiency by displacing gas with H2 plus 40% more efficiency in the burn of the gas = somewhere between 48 and 52 mpg.

This neglects the increase in cylinder pressure possible due to further heating of the steam combustion product of the HHO by the gasoline instead of that heat going into the coolant. It also neglects pumping loss reduction by introduction of HHO gas after the throttle plate, but since less throttle would be required to make more power when the HHO is in full production this probably evens out.

Anyway, no free energy here, you already paid $4 a gallon for it, you've just been throwing $3 away for every $1 that actually pushed you around.

Interesting post but you're playing it fast and loose with a lot of assumptions and leaps of logic. The biggest is how much Hydrogen a the HHO generator can produce. Can a HHO generator produce enough Hydrogen to supply 5% of the fuel? And in relation to that you say "At low load levels, 25% increase in output can be had for 5% increase in fuel consumption." Where did that come from?

And I understand the thermodynamics of the entire system, I just haven't seen any hard data to compute the efficiencies of any part of the HHO system. You need to know how much Hydrogen can be produced for a given amount of time for a given amount of input energy. And then how much energy is gained by the addition of an amount of Hydrogen to the fuel system.

It's really not that complicated to prove, but nobody has proven it yet as far as I know.

https://www.autospeed.com/cms/gallery...0&a=110216&i=9

If you're bumbling along at about 20% load on the highway, 30 on the right edge of that graph, at about 3000 rpm, typical cruise RPM for an auto, you're using about .65lb/hp then going up to 25% load, i.e. increasing current load by 5 or 25%, you end up using .55lb/hp, so although you might have gone from 20HP to 25HP, your consumption has gone from .65x20=13lb/hr to .55x25=13.75lb/hr, whereas you might think it went to .65x25=16.25lb.hr, so in this case to get 5hp of mechanical energy, to convert into 3hp worth of electrical energy, to convert into ~2.5 HP worth of hydrogen costs what was only ~1HP worth of fuel at the original load, not the 5HP worth of gas that might be imagined.

Scuze the tech talk, but does this mean its good?

I have posted similar before. Don't know if it helps. No one seems to notice. Maybe I am reading this wrong. ;)

Look up "hydrogen fuel enhancement." On the wikipedia link below click on the small chart on the right, third item down. This is from an SAE paper, but is numerical results rather than a live experiment. It predicts the same torque at various fuel reductions. It looks pretty legitimate. A lightly loaded engine managed the same torque at half the fuel. I don't quite know how to interpret the hydrogen reformer efficiency though. Since reformer is mentioned it probably ties in with the next link.

I have not done this but I am going to give it a bloody go. One comment in this article suggests flame stability with high levels of EGR when hydrogen is added. That is the first angle I am going to work on as I suspect that my Saturn uses higher levels of EGR with higher intake temperature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_fuel_injection

Here is another well know name claiming it makes a difference. There results are from a generally accepted simulation program though. You can click to the previous or later page for a bit more information.

https://auto.howstuffworks.com/how-a-...ine-works1.htm

I hope this is a start at legitimizing this.

Downsized engine, higher compression, lean burn, more egr. That's not an add on scenario.

The emissions improvements allow higher compression and leaner mixture, which will result in better mileage.

Cold starts can be addressed in the same way as the Prius which uses a thermos jug to keep coolant hot to reduce warm up time.

The quote was 90% of the emissions occur during warmup. Block heaters and coolant heat retention could be a part of that system.

NOX has always been the key issue when you raise compression and use lean burn.

I think they claim a 10% increase in economy due to better combustion characteristics.

Thats a long way from the claims you read.

"Run your car on hydrogen"
"Twice the gas mileage"

I can guarantee you my VX engine is more efficient than 20%, so the fuel map rationale about the cost of generation does not apply.

I actually think it may be possible that the 10% ethanol in the current blend may actually make the engine more efficient, even though the totl BTU content is lower, which would indicate enhanced combustion characteristics.

Not a criticizm or an endorsement. The lure of fuel from water is very tempting, but it's not free. It may be a lot closer to free in a huge diesel engine especially one that spends a significant asmount of time at very light loads, when the percentage of hydrogen would be significant.

I remember the Mercedes diesels before 1981, when the throttle butterfly was eliminated.

When one of the vacuum servos in the door locking system started leaking, the engine would not shut off. Enough air was being sucked through a 2 MM id vacuum line to keep the engine idling. You had to open the hood and use the manual shutoff to stop fuel delivery to the engine to shut it down.

After 1982, when they eliminated the throttle butterfly, they had to add a vacuum pump to work the central locking system. Fuel shutoff was when you turned the key off, and any vacuum leak had nothing to do with unwanted air getting into the engine.

Hard to imagine you could get enough air into a 3 liter engine through such a small orfice. I wonder how much air that engine needed to idle normally.

I usually run my car with no accessory loads. The Idle speed is so low that you can feel the load on the alternator increase when you tun the turn signal on.

regards
gary

Between RW and R.I.D.E. this is GREAT! I do recall from my mechanicing days that alternator load varies with consumption, so that is correct; there is no wasted amps running off to nowhere. Also, we used to put spark plugs in the tailpipes of our motorcycles hooked to a coil and a switch to make flames shoot out the back when we wanted. That's wasted gas, so it exists, IMO.

I intend the same, but with the fiddling. I believe at this point of study that I should add in the cylinder head temp. unit. I do not for one wish to fry an engine.
NOW we're talking real sense. Everyone should take note of this suggestion and someone should do it. IMO the test should run over a decent time period, say an hour or 5 gals fuel over mileage. The test vehicle could do tests with and without the MAP sensor enhancer too. Brilliant.

Thanks quaddancer.

My VX just hit 32K original miles. My plan is to drive it another 8 years. This situation is unique to me and this particular car. It also justifies my conservative approach to actions that could cost me later.

The key to any hypothetical experiment is verification by scientific testing.

My last tank at 68.5 MPG represented a much different operational tactic.

Limit speed to no more than 55 MPH, preferrably 50 or less.

Much lower speed differential in P&G.

Extreeme use of DFSO, to minimize idling.

38 PSI tires (remember they are 15 year old originals)

Always coast when going downhill, gradual speed loss on uphill grades (very slight grades here).

Leave WAI in place.

Drafting when practical and not dangerous, reasonable distance (around here the traffic can be bad at times, 1 car length per 10 MPH is too close 2 is better but close to max).

No EOC, not necessary with the extreeme DFSO, light timing is essentail.I have passed the same car 6 times coasting through the intersection they raced up to and caught the light before it changed.

I think it beat the previous tank by 13 MPG!

regards
gary

That's always fun! The ones I really don't get are when it's not very far to a light that's already red, and they race around you to slam on the brakes... I can understand it a bit when you're further away from the light.... but sometimes it must take sheer idiocy to even contemplate it. I've seen people get mad as well... One series of lights, this guy kept racing off from the light harder and harder to get past me, and was looking like he was gonna run a red... last light he swerved in front of me and brake checked me... now that actually meant he slowed down early enough that he made that light still rolling, which I guess made him happy, since he finally got through a light ahead of me... maybe he "got it" right then.....but i doubt it.

HeHe they can't win. They can only loose a little less.

SUV cuts in front of me:

Old me-#$%^&*(&^%$%^&*( Moron!

New me Ahhhh-my aero assistant-7 more MPG.

Race to the next light in a timed zone:

Old me-probably close behind him.

New me-glad to have to dummy to activate light sensor for me to coast through that light.

DFSO:

Old me-only downshift when you are ready to use that gear for acceleration.

New me-downshifting to keep engine at 1100-1500 RPM. In proper gear to accelerate at proper time.

Hills:

Old me- maintain highest speed possible without getting a ticket- averaged one every ten years, passed by a cop countless times to ticket person in front of me doing a couple MPH more.

New me-Ahhh coast down that puppy, see just how far you can actually coast. I can remember 3 examples in my 20 mile trip that I coast .5 mile, with elevation changes of less than 15-20 feet.

Starting my car

Old me-Crank it up then hook up seat belt, let off brake, put it in gear and take off.

New me-Turn ignition on, belt, gear, brake, garage door up completely, start and go immediately, with perfect engine clutch match at 1000 RPM.


Last night my wife asked me why I coasted 200 feet past my driveway, as we were coasting back to the driveway.

I told her it was another 4 tenths of a tenth of a mile on the odometer. I had shut the engine off as I entered my neighborhood and coasted the last 3.5 tenths of a mile.

I back my car down the 10 foot in 75 foot grade and park in the garage. It saves me a microscopic amount of fuel, but every bit adds up.

Think of DFSO as shutting the engine off without having to go through all the effort it takes to fo through a process.

I think DFSO is highly underrated if you drive a route with 26 traffic lights in 20 miles, with most of them concentrated in a couple of areas.

regards
gary

Things to understand... HHO generators..
 

Brute force electrolysis is OK for test environments but in a car application you need to keep your plate gap voltage to 2.0v per gap per cell. If you don't have this you will not be happy with your cell on all levels. 13.5 volts using a 7 plate config for 1 cell +nnnnn- will give you 2.0 volts per plate gap. Using tap water and sodium hydroxide your water will stay clean. Electrolysis accurse at 1.25v. Anything over this voltage heat is created and muck in your water. When using neutral plates sealing the edges plates will prevent current leakage. Once you reach 2.0v per plate gape then add electrolyte:) to bring up your amperage for good production.

I've posted vids on youtube under this screen name. Enjoy your new results.

water4fuelh20

I have never produced hydrogen at 2 volts and below. My best production is between 5 and 5.5 volts using NaOH and distilled water. I do NOT get sludge; the electrolyte remains clear.

If you use tap water you have NO idea what is in the electrolyte. Tap water here is very high in calcium. Other places have high concentrations of iron. Other areas have sodium and even selenium.

I have found that operating temperature is of utmost importance.

I am not trying to be argumentative, it is just that what works for one person may produce entirely different results for another. THAT is what we must understand.

matetials
 

What are you using for the container?

...Are you serious?...
 

//NOTE
I do not pretend I am very gifted in spelling or structure. Proceed accordingly//

Really? First off, you mean 2(H2)+O2 generator. If you're going to grill people on the law of conservation of energy, at least get your quantities correct.
WRONG. The idea behind this is using energy that is already present to do something usefull with it. Like using a current that is normally wasted to produce a gas that IS useable. Or to harness heat from the engine to raise the temperate of the water even slightly to require less energy from a current. Your single thought argument to the reason this DOESN'T work is also the major reason is DOES work. Most of the energy from gasoline combustion is in the form of heat. What is being done with said heat? Nothing. The bottum line is that you are looking at things too small. You are concentrating on one VERY small part of the entire system. As a fellow chemist, I am disappointed.
Fine, people lie to sell things. This is nothing new. But I highly doubt you rant and rave about politics or why gas prices are the way they are. Or how about the mark-up on cigarettes while your at it? Quit *****ing and let people have their fun. At the very least we might find something usefull to do with our time other than make half-thought arguments in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

Cool read, I'm glad someone did it and documented it. But what you DIDN'T do and which therefore makes this whole thread and your $300 effort useless, is that you didn't USE your device or document any results. Where did you go? When I tried this when I was in highschool I didn't use plates or pulsing and it became pretty clear the large draw on my electrical system was going to drop my 8MPH even further, so I declared it a failure. But now with the pulsing and some people using AC across the plates and the close spacing and using a base (previously I was always told an acid was best) have me really interested again. So I would really like to know your results.

Next, Rower was just commenting on how it's stupid people call it HHO, I've seen people on other boards think they're creating H which would never ever happen. You're creating H2 and O2 and as you said they will be in a 2:1 ratio, also called Brown's Gas.

Also something new I've only seen in this thread, how can people say they're using 'waste' energy to do something useful? There is never any 'waste' energy coming from the alternator, any energy it produces is hard earned by burning gasoline at whatever horribly inefficient (~30% I thought) combustible process your engine uses and then being driven by a belt (I've heard anywhere from 60-80% efficient). As others have said, try jumping someone or starting with a dead battery or even turning your blinker on, you can tell the engine is lugging more, has more of a load on it and I'm sure with a SG you'd see increased fuel consumption.

Now as RW said, because engines are more efficient under load we're not being hit as bad as possibly could be. And I can totally see how possibly having some H2 could help burning, definately having more O2 will help. I think we should be using O2 tanks to reduce emissions instead of extra gasoline and platinum, but that's another story. But I'm still very leary that this extra amount could help enough to justify the increased load.

I've always thought we should make an efficient generator and use it at home to fill old NOX tanks and use it in the same way, for a boost in efficiency and power when needed. Too bad it's so hard to store and transport H2. Good mention on the ethonal, but I like to complain more about pushing the Hydrogen cell technology. That's great that H2 + O2 generates water, woopee, too bad it is so inefficient to create and store and there's no way you'd set up a distribution network for it. The Fed Gov is dumping a lot of money into this and it really drives me crazy, it's so stupid. Why not just design cities better in the first place? An extra lane or extra expressway is NOT the answer. If you want to build on existing infrastructure and still have some 'independace' and batteries are too inefficient in your view then go crazy and build power lines over the streets and give cars contactor antennaes. I think that'd be sweet, electrical cars with less batteries and some capitors and some main routes with places you can recharge as you drive.

My Reactor
 

I have built several HHO generators and have found success. There are several critical points that have to be exact, like high quality stainless steel for EVERYTHING in the reaction chamber, but you can SKYROCKET your mileage using one and small device to deceive your oxygen sensors. Everyone will bash you for it (Watch the responses that are sure to come) saying its impossible because it violates this law of thermal dynamics or these physics fundamentals but if you just build the damn thing and keep dialing it in you can do this yourself better than with the CRAP for sale on the web. I got exciting results on my very first try. You will need to be able to weld or have access to someone who can. You can get everything you need at Ace hardware and Home depot or Lowe's.

I will include some videos I made and posted to youtube that will give you a general idea of what is involved. The second video is one of my first reactors so ignore the insulated copper wire and solder. It was an experimental prototype not intended for long term use.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02XR7r3av6w


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PDFrg3U1AQ
Edit/Delete Message

all i can say is read this:

https://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Water_Fuel_Cell

https://waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.files/D14.pdf

https://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

dont be ****bags and argue against this.. start a anti-hydrogen thread if you feel so compelled to do so. Some how you guys have enough time to write up huge essays meant for grade school on why it shouldnt work while we are pumpin hydrogen into our cars. (whether this may be conventional or not)

anyone replicated this specific generator or would attempt this?

Now, That is true, But you are so long. The point is, you dont have as good Mpg. however the fuel is cheaper. so if you figure out how much 20MPG costs with reg fuel, vs E-85. You will see you still save with E-85.


With hydrogen, as well are doing is using leftover power from the engine, to add more fuel, Therefore giving an increase.

The technology does work. That is why your able to add subs and amps into a vechile with the power allready supplied.

The power (additional amperage) is available at a cost in gasoline.

That seems to be what most proponents seem to not realize or choose to ignore.

Its not free electricity you are using.

It's additional electricity demanded from your charging system that requires the engine to burn more fuel to produce the additional power to drive the alternator to charge your 20 amps.

If it was free why not hook it up to your house and get that electricity for free!

regards
gary

some info
 

thought i would chime in with my results after months of testing. I am new to these boards and my knowledge spanning 5 completely different home built systems and months of testing might be of help to some prospective HHO builders.
My vehicle is a 1998 Subaru Outback Sport with a 2.2l boxer engine
My Car

my HHO device is comprised of 13 3.5" by 7" plates wired (-)NNNNN(+)NNNNN(-) in nearly a half gallon 7/16" thick glass container with a teaspoon of naoh
HHO Container External View
HHO Internals

My system is wired in 10 guage wire through a 30 amp fuse, a 30 amp relay an ammeter, a stock 15amp (running lights always on) switch. It feeds the engine through a vaccum line on the intake manifold
Dashboard with switch and ammeter

My subaru without the system has never gained more than 25mpg and under normal driving conditions typically gets 24mpg.
With the system it put out 34mpg avg daily driving on 7 straight tests, and a 37mpg highway rating starting at 10 amp draw and increasing to 28 amp draw over the course of a 2 hour road trip on 2 tests. The system gives a substantial increase in throttle response that can be felt immediately.

I have checked my spark plugs and will say that the burn rate of the plugs appears to be ideal
Spark Plugs

I have had a water4gas spiral glass jar system, a stacked 7 plate lowes electrical plate system, a plexiglass 10 plate 5 baffled chamber -N NN NN NN N+ system, a 10 plate -NNNNNNNN+ with 1/8" spacers and now my 13 plate system.

A PWM controller is on order, not for its potential for greater mpg, but for its ability to control maximum amperage draw seeing that the system will increase amp draw as it heats up

I am from the bay area california and on a recent trip up to tahoe i tracked my subaru with 3 passengers geared for snowboarding with 3 boards on the rack and an 80mph romp up from 0 elevation to 6000 ft at 23mpg...thats approximately 600 pounds of extra weight and some wind drag, floored, up hill in windy conditions and I am thrilled!! b/c going up to the snow was the reason for the install

Things to know:
if you're blowing fuses try adding some neutral in close proximity to your anode and cathode, water is a semi conductor, it will conduct through your neutral plates producing hydrogen and at the same time lowering your amperage draw.

Balance your system, more neutral plates may require more electrolyte

scratching up your plates gives more surface area and promotes better flow

wire in a ammeter, kill switch, and pwm, will give you that "factory installed" feel of control and reliability

I am a dyi-er with limited knowledge in chemistry and automotive electrical but was capable of building this system myself, so have a can-do attitude

Hope this helped some people

great job! Good work documenting everything. I hope everything keeps up for you. Whats your epa mpg? Are you going to lean any fuel out? Just wondering. I really like your gauge setup on the column. Where did you get it?

Also, what kind of output are you getting from your cell?

response
 

thanks Ven, epa is 23mpg(20 city, 27 highway), I wasn't planning on leaning the fuel until i really had everything fine tuned and settled. Thank you about the guage, i bought a cheap plastic guage pod for another vehicle, cut it off of its plastic housing, glued it to my OEM panel and than went to work with some bondo and a lot of patience, all in all it was not that difficult to do.

I have some recent discoveries:
i found out that my heater lines going into my firewall were up against my HHO container giving it a lot of extra heat and raising the amperage draw

I also discovered that my vacuum line was not as efficient as i was lead to believe, I decided to cap off a few unneccessary accessories and i tee'd off my HHO line, one line to the intake manifold and the other to a one direction pcv valve screwed into my intake right in front of my throttle body, i will post results when i get them but i will say throttle response seems to cary further into my RPM band

PWM - Direct Current or Alternating Current?
 

Pulse Width Modulation is an AC freq variation based on square wave. DC can NOT produce PWM effect. You can "Pulse Time", meaning turn power on and off, using DC but that does NOT cause the same effect as PWM.

The closest you can get to PWM effect is to use a DC/AC modified-square wave power inverter. A pure square wave inverter is difficult to find because interferes with electronics including your car's ECU.

So what most people are usually calling as DC-based PWM is actually a "Pulse Timer". It turns on and off every T time, where T is a variable you can set.

You can actually buy a Pulse timer from Amazon.com for $10 here

https://www.amazon.com/Pulse-Timer-wi...233929&sr=8-16

totally agree! pwm is another gimmick to get you to buy somthin...
along with o2 minipulators go straight to map/maf and your done...simple volume control knob from rad shck is what i use...without it you will get no gains!!
most altrntrs produce 110amps so my gen draws 28amps...not much different than turnin on the headlights or my 1200wt subs in the back :p ..

last thing is...there are doer's and there are procrastinators...either do or dont....if you do then u know for ur self if u dont then youll never know :p

anybody who says it dont work hasnt tried or works in the oil industry...
im in oklahoma and most everyone in my town works on a oil rig...they all are amazed at what im doing but hope it doesnt go far...im not selling anything..

this is not rocket science its so easy its stupid :p

use what you got (12v-13.8v) add as much as 30 amps (more amps more gas) achieve amps with mix (i use 3/4tsp ph+ for swim pool to distld h2o)

good luck ...drive it like you stole it!!:D

Hello all - great forum, I just signed up :)

I am wondering what is the MAX liters per min I should consider using on my V8 chevy?

My HHO device will be finished this w/e and I am confident it will be capable of producing WAY more HHO than any other unit I have seen out there (I'll post the numbers and secrets if I am right LOL).

I know my V8 needs quite a bit and I have seen V8 units for sale in the .75 to 2.75 liter range.

Any input on when it becomes "too much"??
I don't wanna blow up my engine! LOL

Thanks.

Great idea. I expect these types of posters to that thread...

1. those who have never tried it.
2. those that read somewhere that it doesn't work.
3. those who have not made the necessary tweaks to make it work on their car.
4. those who have interests in the petroleum industry.

I disagree. There is a valid reason for the lower MPG out of an engine running E85, gasoline. All E85 vehicles are 'flex fuel', meaning they have to run both gasoline and E85 on the same engine. If you were to build an engine tailored to take advantage of the 105 octane of E85 and then ran pump gasoline in it you would kill the engine before you even ran through your first tank and the infrastructure isn't there in most places to actually make E85 only vehicles. (Albuquerque only has one station for E85, if you don't count where the city gases up almost all of its fleet)

Have you ever looked at an engine that has run E85 its entire life? The engine is spotless inside, I've seen spark plugs come out of E85 engines that looked almost new except for a worn electrode. The oil stays clean much longer too.

I don't run E85 because like most non-flex fuel vehicles I'll get a code for the O2 reading excessively lean. I'm sure, however, that if I was to modify my engine for E85 only running I could get it pretty close to the mileage I get on gasoline with way more power on tap if I need it.

Someone should ask this guy about HHO.
A 99 Corvette getting 73.58MPG with HHO:

https://www.gassavers.org/garage/view/2310

Whether "HHO" is viable or not isn't my argument. I'd like to hear ANYONE who actually has it working and the results. Even a very small system that will gain you say 10% or better FE would be helpful... I'll re-read this thread when I get more time.

That gets asked for countless times but nobody can give us any real evidence. They just want to sell us a unit and call it done.