Hho
 

Hello i have started a new HH-O site and wanted to get the word out,

Been looking through the projects here and am very impressed,

Never give up Happy experimenting :thumbup:

Is your site an informational site or sales? What is the web address? How about including a link.

But if you take our HHO people, who are we going to make fun of?

People like me who glide in full size 4wd pickup trucks?

;)

-Jay

Russ-

There were several "spammy" threads yesterday, and you've probably noticed that they were deleted. However I'll let this one stick, because you seem to have a sincere attitude about increasing fuel economy.

Elsewhere on these forums, there are guidelines for conducting experiments, and we'd be very interested in any factual data you can present. It would be beneficial for everyone if you could look those methods up and give us any repeatable before-after-before data, because (as you can probably tell) there are a lot of people skeptical about the whole HHO thing 'round these parts. There are many "HHO" sites and most of them are bologna (from a statistical/sales perspective), so perhaps you can bring some credibility to this whole realm.

Looking forward to your input!

-Bob C.

Glad you're here then. Any decoy from the duck tape mobile is appreciated.

LOL, I don't care. Make fun all you want... :p Today I was seriously considering blocking off the rear wheelwells after I switched back to the narrower size stock tires later this summer. I tell you though, I miss my old 1974 C-10 pickup. That had a 350 with no emissions equipment to slow it down. With over 300,000 miles that truck hit the high 20's on the highway just by keeping a light touch on the pedal. No gliding or anything else special. None of my other trucks ever did that on a regular basis. It also had an a/c that was so cold if left on max it would frost up the windows!

-Jay

EDIT: BTW, it looks like your car is sticking its tongue out at me!

When a big truck like yours passes me, my scangauge mpg's go up a couple MPG for about 5 seconds. That's how much air you're pushing with that big flat front end.

I think that warrants some experimentation. If you can draft on the side of a truck (not in his blind spot of course!!!) you don't have the rocks kicked up on your car as much, and you don't have the possibility of rearending him.

-Jay

Woops
 

For all the people that don't believe come and see my kitchen after my reactor exploded Woops

Belive me when u sit there and melt things with water you then believe its real

at first i did wonder but trust me!

(FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT DON'T BELIEVE)
Get a 12v battery and 2 bits of tin foil connect the battery to the tinfoil via wires and space the tin foil with kitchen cloth, you will be amassed at how much hydrogen you can create with tin foil and a bit of salt'y water

That was what convinced me and sent me on my journey

PS to catch your bubbles to explode try adding a small amount of washing up liquid it alows the bubbles to form on the surface and be ignited, Always remember be safe!

Or you will have a kitchen like mine :mad:

COMPLETELY INFORMATION
Wouldn't dream of charging for something we should all own
We need to make this as open source as possible, i am doing it all out of interests

And again that link is https://hho.kicks-a s s.net without the spaces


Thanks for your time


Russ

Used up all my tin foil on headgear. Will get some tomorrow, if the Illustrious Leader will let us leave the compound.

B

I used mine lining an old football helmet so the Gov't spy satellites cannot read my mind.
:p

Tin Foil
 

lol belive it or not i did something simular the other day, amassing stuff.

if your keen to try it you can just use copper wire but it erodes quickly the closer the two wires the more production you will recive but the more amps you will draw

Good one; I think the site is gonna be okay after all.

Y didnt i
 

Y didnt i think of that ?

:D

and all this time ive been wasting my time on trying to get more for my money?

i was disgusted today to get 7.5 leters of petrol for ?10

I did this as a seventh grade science project, but I still haven't seen real evidence that it can be a true gas-saver. Not trying to be a hard-***, but I think the rest of the crowd around here also has yet to be convinced.

-BC

Come here and ill show you,
 

Yuh your telling me,

I am convinced of this as i have had a mini moto engine idling off of the stuff and i have also made a blow torch,

if you truly believe that it dose not work .please try it, its as simple as two bits of tin foil an old 12v charger and some salt. put a rely small amount of washing up liquid (and i mean small) and it will catch all the bubbles. you can then light them. it is very explosive, it takes seconds to set up and surprising results.

please do try it if you ' believe me and then leave your posts here. if it dose not work ill be a monkeys uncle.


Russ. . .

Where was the power for the mini-moto engine coming from?

The thing that gets me is how it's supposed to increase fuel economy so drastically but you can't just run a car off of it. If any sort of outside fuel source like this can increase something even a little on a small scale, it makes sense(to me anyways) that a unit used in say a v8 car could power a little 3.5hp briggs standalone.

The reason I come to that conclusion is because the way this is supposed to be working is the H2 and O2 in the chamber are supposed to create more energy when they burn than you need(increased mpg) to do the initial electrolysis, count for the lack of thermal efficiency in the engine and mechanical to electrical losses in the alternator.

If you do the numbers(and to keep you HHO freaks happy I'll use the high numbers) electrolysis of water hovers around 50% efficiency, alternators typically hang around 70% when they are new and get progressively worse over time, and the most efficient of engines have a thermal efficiency close to 30% under ideal conditions.

This whole (extremely simplified cycle) is only about 11% efficient if I round up. With an 89% loss in the system as a whole, how do you get an increase in mpg? At 12v and 5 amps, you have a 60 watt draw on the electrical system. To break even with that draw the HHO needs to generate an additional 1900BTU. That's 1.5% of the BTUs in a single gallon of gasoline to break even.

I just don't get it. Starting with water and ending with water while being able to get extra work out of the process. Sounds like a perpetual motion machine to me...

Russ-

My 7th grade science teacher was a bit of a kook, so he didn't mind me making that explosion as part of the demonstration. So I don't question that it could be a viable energy source.

The question I see is that it takes a fair amount of energy to separate the oxygen from the hydrogen, and whether there is a *net gain* from the process. Is it worth the extra draw on the alternator, to create an extra amount of fuel?

I would love to see evidence that it is.

-BC

i am not a scientist i just know it worked on a small engine so it must have some benefit i am modest in this technology thats why i came here i wanted to pick some brains. i have taken in so much so far and i am even starting to wonder myself because of the amount of negative response it but its the amount of hho it produces and the power behind it. i have used a
2l bottle full of water with the hho outlet in the bottom, it takes me 1min 20 to fill that bottle full of hho and clear all the water, i dont no if that will give you any idea of output but i hope it helps.

i just no that somewhere in this process there is a gain to be had. i mean google it and you will see there has been a few people announce this technology and applied for a patent that "have gone missing" or just turned round 1 day and said publicly that there discontinuing there builds of machines

had goverment come to there house because of there designs.

they want us to pay for fuel thats why.

maby at this point in time your right its not a closed loop, there is to much draw on the car to justify it but i believe there will be advances in the tecnology and it will become more productive, i mean im making this in my shed without a shop. imagen what you could build with a geek and a lab??

im not saying you should all go and do it but there is something there even if its not just yet the technology has great potential to grow and. there has been so many claims of this its hard to ignore


Thanks Russ . . .

i believe its due to the fact if the hho burning to fast for the engine to run i know that the timing has to be retarded to allow combustion without pinking,

i know when the hho runs with the petrol it makes the spark cleaner adds air to assist combustion and makes the mix more explosive with the trace of hydrogen people have had lawnmower engines generators and bikes running purely off of he hho by retarding the timing removing the carb and useing a nedel valve on the hho as the throttle so i suppose if you create enough you could run a car from it but at the moment thats not my aim.

i just want to save a few quid in the tank.


Russ . .

Sure it can run a lawnmower. I remember in the 80's I got 2nd place in the science fair because of it. I was pissed. I did a science fair project on psychokinesis, and this kid that rigged up a 12v battery charger to a plastic trash bag and a 3.5 HP Briggs & Stratton engine won first place. It took him about 3 hours to fill the trash bag with hydrogen gas, which ran the lawnmower motor for about 5 seconds...

i bet you wor
 

still second is not bad :S

o cant believe it took him 3 hours haha must of been pain staking waiting all that for 5 minuets,

just goes to show it even interested people back then and it hasn't left yet
i suppose the problem is it dose just seem to good to be true i mean turn on the tap drive down the road,

I think you need to re-read my post. He was making hydrogen for 3 hours so it could run for about 5 seconds, not 5 minutes...

And still... My experiment proved that psychokinesis existed, and worked! I should have gotten 1st place. I guess it could have been worse. You should have seen me the year I got third place for an experiment on the learning capabilities of rats. I always did elaborate science fair projects. I really was a nerd in school.

-Jay

beg my pardon its late here 2:18 am :D

what was your project? You sparked my curiosity lol!

I interviewed volunteers, and then I gave them a penny and a plastic cup. The subject was to put the penny in the cup, shake it up and call heads 10 times in a row, and then call tails 10 times in a row. I found people who could do this with as much as 80% accuracy. I even found one subject with what is called "reverse ESP". He was wrong 100% of the time... I thought it was a very original science fair experiment in an area of science that is largely ignored.

-Jay

that sounds interesting i believe there is something there were not useing or maby only using subconsciously

Just a note to the naysayers who are stuck in the mud. I've seen plenty of evidence as to the efficacy of gas savings so far, but it's only on this site that people are required to have logs to "prove" reality. So I built a modified Smack Booster...getting over 1l/min. and road tested my work yesterday, with NO electronics, NO oxygen sensor extender, just HHO into the intake, and gained 3mph on my first try, in my Silverado V-8. NOBODY can tell me it doesn't work, regardless of all the "math" formulas, laws of thermodynamics or personal grudges they post. BTW, the laws of thermodynamics should include ALL the existing factors, right? Then why not figure in THE INEFFICIENCY OF GAS along with your concept? That's what it's all about from what I've studied, not getting something for nothing.
Now if that wasn't enough, look at the new Honda car...RUNNING PURELY ON IT'S OWN HHO PRODUCTION...and get ready for the new wave baby, it's gonna be a mindblower. Leave it to the japanese to leave our american sloths in the dust. The Australians have a lot going on as well, and seem to have a new type of HHO power source that I find hard to believe myself. Burnable water, not gas. No, really, I mean the water can be LIT.

:)
 

Good to hear your a believer, if you ever fancy a chat or chuck some ideas about drop us a email

Russ . . .

You do realize that the ideal Hydrogen-Air mixture in an engine only burns at around 8 ft/sec right? Gasoline in open air burns at about 70 ft/sec and in an engine that goes as high as 170 ft/sec with compression. Gasoline burns more efficiently. And, saying you don't care about the fundamental laws of science doesn't help your case much. That just tells me that when you installed the HHO generator you probably drove differently.

A pound of H2 does have ~60,000 btu of latent energy while a pound of gasoline only has ~20,000 btu. BUT a pound of gasoline takes up 1/50th of a cubic foot of space while a pound of H2 gas(what we are working with here) takes up about 190 cubic feet of space. Also, a gallon of gasoline has 125,000 btu in it and a gallon of hydrogen has about 40.

I have no qualms with using hydrogen, it's a perfectly viable solution for alternative forms of energy acquisition. My only problem is when people like you come on here and say everyone that's trying to understand how this works is just talking it down for the sake of talking it down and should accept it as though you got the plans for it out of the bible or something. I have simply said that I don't understand how it could work and I would like for someone to actually use their brain for once and come up with an explanation.

These are my questions:
-How much gas in cubic feet per minute does the chamber make?
-What is the current draw on the 12v system to make that much gas?
-Is it the introduction of Hydrogen that's causing the increases or is it the introduction of Oxygen that is making the difference?
-Am I going to have to build my own unit to answer these questions?

If HHO can actually work, there are dozens of people on this site willing to test it on their own rigs if someone can just show exact steps. As a moderator here, I have read nearly every message ever posted here, and we do take HHO seriously. If it's a viable alternative, and can extend fuel consumption well past the monetary and energy inputs required, then it would be a certain hit here.

Russ making comments like "my reactor blew up my kitchen" does not show that this is a viable alternative. In my high school physics class, the teacher separated water into hydrogen and oxygen with a battery, in some water with a little soap added, and we'd toss in matches and watch the explosions in the beaker. A beaker and battery is hardly a "reactor". It ended when it went a little too long and the flask blew up, spraying glass everywhere. There IS power in separated water, but we have yet to see valid, viable reproducible evidence that it's more economical to add separated water to the intake than the energy required to separate it.

Yes, this site has an undercurrent of "show me the proof", because this is a site for sharing ideas (and asking questions) about how to extend fuel economy.

If you have been able to produce effects like this, EVERYONE would be happy to see the results, and we'd like to take the opportunity to have some people scientifically reproduce those results.

There are a lot of people who want to sell snake oil, they are regularly chased from here.

So - if you've got reproducible results, you have a captive audience who would love to see them.

Similarly, we know it's possible for a vehicle to get 376 miles per gallon, there are vehicles in Europe that have exceeded 6000 MPG. Research 376milespergallon.com, the 1959 Opel with solid rubber tires that achieved this feat in 1973 with a heavily modified vehicle at 30 MPH. There are those who are experimenting with a constant-speed motor like the Chevy Volt, or diesel trains, that power a generator for battery charging. Using a modified engine like the 1959 Opel, theoretically it might be possible to have an electric vehicle powered by a constant-speed motor, getting in excess of 200 MPG for a real actual daily driver.

So - it really is okay that this site's members ask for proof, not poof.

Another question, since electrolysis is a result of current, not voltage, has anyone used a transformer to step the voltage down to like 1-2v and run a high amperage unit?

power is power. if you use a step down transformer, then you will see the same amount of watts on both sides of the transformer so you won't really see any electrical benefits from it other than running one cell vs many cells like some people are running.

and if you put DC into a transformer, it tends to melt. you have to pulse DC to run it through a transformer. I guess in a theoretical sense you could use a DC to DC converter but now you have more losses from that.

and not to start any more mess but....still waiting for a gas log

Counterpoint:

I contacted two people who were trying to sell the HHO generators here in eastern Virginia.

Remember these are people who are trying to commercialize HHO generators, so I think you could assume they would be positive about their product.

I asked them why not 100% HHO, you know the "Run Your Car on Water" claim. Humm sorry it wont work.

They were focusing on larger diesel vehicles and made some claims that were in the range of 20% improvements in mileage, but these are vehicles that also spend a lot of time idling unnecessarily.

They also told me that Virginia had passed laws that required them to certify their systems as emissions compliant, on all emissions regulated vehicles, which explains their focus on non emissions regulated vehicles.

The mass of the fuel you are creating at 1 gallon per minute HHO generation, is less that 1/10th of 1% the mass of fuel you need to run my (58.81 MPG)car.

Enhanced combustion characteristics are the ONLY logical reason any HHO system would work, because the generation of HHO cost several times the power in to get the fuel out. Obviously the ONLY claim that could even come close to legitimate would be enhanced combustion.

I like proof and I accept proof as a fact when I know the testing was done by a disinterested party who has no possible financial interest that would predetermine the result.

Its soo easy to prove.

Dyno a car stock same load and speed, verify fuel consumption.

Dyno the same car with HHO without using the vehicles charging system to generate the HHO.

Dyno the same car with the system hooked up to the vehicles charging system.

First test is your basis with no possible variables, like how the car is driven.

Second test is your ideal increase in efficiency with no added power required from your alternator.

Third test is your real world HHO setup in the car using the charging system to generate your HHO.

Game-set-match

Done by an independent lab with a reputation for credibility.

Now even if you do succeed in proving without any doubt that the system is proven to be beneficial, now you only have to figure out how to make it hands off and maintenance free, for 50,000 miles as required by federal emissions regulations, to avoid the $2500 fine as a violator.

Put up or shut up.

regards
gary

gary, I like you. you always have good information to share.

I am glad that I am not the only one that wants to see proof of the better mileage. the dyno would be ideal but I would be happy with a gas log that continues to grow over months of study. my gas log is almost 3 months old now so If I claim something great has happened, people can watch my progress or watch me fall on my face (usually the latter of the two) but that is how you progress with anything.

Heck, I agree with all of you, actually. But as for understanding this thing, the only word that comes to mind from science classes MANNNNY years ago, is "catalyst", which I believe was a substance that causes reactions in other substances or something like that. Since results on HHO are very different from car to car, driver to driver, there seems to be some very variable science involved that won't compute mathematically. ('cause it's magic, right?)
R.I.D.E. has a great testing concept and I've wondered why no one here has tried that out, preferably using the additional electronics I keep hearing you'll need. I'm not stupid enough (or vain) to featherpedal around on a test when I don't every day. I got better mileage out of 3 traffic jams than I do on the road trips, for one run. BUT...I keep seeing some discussion coming up about idling, and I was doing a lot of that; stands to reason that the fuel/HHO mix is a higher ratio at idle and there could be the fluctuation. HOWEVER. I don't have enough toes to count the anecdotes of people trying this stuff out and either succeeding or failing until improvements were made.
I guess I get a little miffed when it seems like VERY smart people come up with a lot of math to explain away something in the face of something that works- wether we can explain it or not.
To answer DK:
These are my questions:
-I dunno, 1.21L/min. - aha, found the formula: .04 cu. ft./min.
A whopping and unacceptable 28 amps
mmm...dunno, but if it works...
to satisfy yourself, yes, if you don't sabotage it. Not that you would, but some of the mooks out there...
Oh, one last thing: I DID see a report done by some people with a van that dyno tested it with and without the HHO on and gained 16% with no electronics. I can find it.

if I did something to my car and it did wonderously, I for my own knowledge would want to know how it works just for my own understanding.

I am a firm believer in knowledge is power so if you don't understand something (whatever it is) then learn. if you don't understand how it works then how can you repeat it or better yet perfect it?

you keep talking about the inefficiencies of the ICE (internal combustion engine) which is not in question but that inefficient engine is the power source for your hydrogen generator making it less efficient at the power source.

I am not arguing that you can make hydrogen or that you can run a car on hydrogen.... well my arguements don't seem to make a difference anymore, people are still going to claim that they are doubling their mileage and the moderators will keep taking the threads off of here so I am not sure what else to say.