So explain how H injection doesn't work again?
 

https://pesn.com/2008/02/01/9500470_A...gen-injection/

Based on well-documented research conducted by a plethora of scientific sources since the 1970?s, it has become a known scientific fact that the addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines (ICE) offers a number of significant benefits including increased fuel efficiency and horsepower alongside reduced greenhouse gases and emissions. These benefits can be attributed to the more complete combustion of the fuel when hydrogen is injected into the air/fuel mixture.

An increase in fuel efficiency by as much as 40% has been seen in certain applications such as stationary gensets. Typically, the introduction of hydrogen into an ICE will realize fuel savings from 10 to 25% dependant on several factors which influence fuel economy, including driving habits and the condition and make of the engine.

The significant increase in horsepower is considered by some to be a side benefit, but truck drivers interviewed have expressed that the increase in horsepower warrants enough benefit on its own to justify the purchase of the unit, irrespective of fuel savings.

The customary black smoke that is typical of diesel powered trucks and buses is virtually eliminated in the case of hydrogen injection. The emissions reductions include:

? 8 to 25% reduction in Co2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
? Up to 98% reduction in particulate matter
? Up to 98% reduction in carbon monoxide
? Up to 75% reduction in hydrocarbons
? Up to 51% reduction of nitrous oxides

I imagine that its effect on common diesel engines would differ from its effect on common gasoline engines.

I personally would not argue that hydrogen added to fuel would or would not help, but my only question is if it helps more than generating it onboard hinders. If you try to tell me that it only takes X energy to make it but you get X*2 energy by burning it, I won't believe it. If you want to suggest that it catalyzes the other fuel or enhances the combustion, well that's more realistic.

If you're talking about generating it elsewhere and just carrying it onboard, that's a whole other story.

That all said, I suspect I will eventually try it. It can be tried with minimal investment (maybe zero money, and just a few hours time), and some people do report success, so why not...

I have been waiting for someone to test out the whole hho scenareo in a real car and share data with a gas log and I do realize that results vary from car to car but with so very little data to go by, we have to use what we have.

if you are interested, please search for "rolling box car" in the garage. if you have issues just search for "jeep". read his gas log. I think it speaks for itself.

There is no doubt that adding EXTERNALLY SUPPLIED hydrogen will improve mileage, and reduce emissions.

But all af the hydrogen threads I've read describe hydrogen produced ON BOARD the car from hydrolysis of water using electricity generated by the alternator. These schemes cannot reduce fuel consumption because of the energy losses in the alternator, rectifier, the electrolytic cell, and the hydrogen combustion itself.

Continuous hydrogen generation creates alternator drag on the engine and uses more energy than it creates by combustion.

On board hydrogen generation could reduce fuel usage IF AND ONLY IF it is electrolytically generated during braking, or from a thermoelectric? generator mounted on the tailpipe or other waste heat source.

A test by radio show
 

Just FYI, Coast to Coast AM, a middle of the night radio show is testing on, I think it's a producer's car, during this next week and will air the results.

Finally someone talked them into testing it. I hope they know what there doing.

interesting radio program, but alas, i digress.

Increasing engine load by X percent does not necessarily increase fuel consumption by X percent. See the BSFC graphs that are floating round. So, you can get 3KW more out of a motor, for less than 3KW more gasoline burned, in some cases a lot less, then even with conversion inefficiency, you're at break-even with the energy in the HHO... however, that's not all, because the thermodynamic efficiency of burning hydrogen is DRASTICALLY better than the thermodynamic efficiency of burning gas, your HHO is worth twice it's equivalent in gasoline, because you don't get only 25% of it's energy as power, like you do for gas, it's more like 50%. Add to that that H2 injection can modify the lean limit of gasoline combustion from around 16:1 to as high as 26:1 and you can also burn a lot less gasoline for the same RPM... it makes the gasoline burn better than 25% efficient too... provided it's all tuned in and compensated for.

So you can divert 10% of output into HHO production which makes 5% of the total gas used, but to get the extra 10% because BFSC typically improves with load, you only have to spend 2% more gas. So the HHO "cost" half it's heating value in gasoline, then you burn it at double the efficiency in the motor, now it's 4x the actual extra gas used, then you can lean back your fuelling by a third, as well as the gasoline you don't need to burn that the HHO at 4x the output displaces....

This is actually scavenging "waste" heat, but it's doing it inside the motor, best place of all to do it. It's all a numbers game with the thermodynamics made possible by the fact that H2 has a humungous specific heat capacity relative to it's combustion product. 7:1 whereas with gas it's around 2-3:1 This means that the combustion product cannot possibly absorb much heat at all from the combustion process and must expand instead. Expansion is good, expansion is what we want, heat must be got rid of, expansion moves the pistons, so we get over double the expansion out of burning H2 as we get from burning gasoline, and less heat wasted. Making the gasoline flame front burn faster is another thermodynamic "heat scavenging" benefit, because it allows less time for a slow heat soak into the walls of the chamber and piston as the gas lazily nudges at the piston, more gasoline energy goes into combustion product expansion and pressure when the flame front is faster and less goes into the coolant.

It's virtually all about the thermodynamic inefficiency of gasoline as a fuel, there's no free energy, it's a method to take the energy that's there, re-apply it and make it push pistons and turn wheels instead of heating air and exhaust gases. Take away the gasoline and you've got nothing, no car that runs on water alone, you're scavenging energy big time, but not making it.

You can prove your point in minutes using a dyno set to a load that duplicates any highway speed.

Haven't seen a dyno readout anytime recently.

Does anyone here honestly think I would be stupid enough to NOT use something that would give me 50% better mileage. That would be almost 90 MPG.

10% would be 65

20% would be 72

regards
gary

Next week my carbed 351C will be ready to do an HH0 test on.
Flapdoodle did some tests some time back. But did he do a scientific test even with the engine up too 1800rpm no load to see if the is a higher rpm with HHO than not?
This debate is getting very old! I'd like too settle it!
Mark

There's a lot of basic inertial dynos out there that can't measure anything but WOT blasts. One needs access to a "real" dyno that one can vary load. Then one has to come up with an elaborate setup for doing what a driver does automatically, using as much throttle as necessary to maintain a fairly constant external load/speed. You're likely to waste days frigging around with the test setup on a very expensive dyno, then when everything is set you can frig around with the HHO on and off.

Then all you've got is numbers that say it uses X percent less, where before you had numbers that said it went Y percent further on a gallon. If nobody can get their head round Y what makes you think X is gonna sell 'em.

Oh and however you set it up, the scofftics are gonna be too busy looking for "the man behind the curtain" to pay attention to what actually happened. I'll save them the trouble, the man behind the curtain is in this equation...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterma...mic_Efficiency
go figure out the value of g for various small mixtures of H2 and see the numbers bounce around. Now see how much extra efficiency you get for an extra few percent "parasitic" load, remembering that while drivetrain and engine frictional losses are usually reckoned as a percentage of the output, that they are not magically going to go UP when you increase the efficiency of the motor. Forget all the rules of thumb, they are for straight gasoline motors.

Even no load you should see an increase in rpm same throttle angle.
Look I'm a "Troll". SivlerBullet dude don't even know me. These guys piss me off and make LOL at the same time.
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/69...ossible-6.html

Heh, it won't work, it must not work, IT CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO WORK. LOL.

LOL
I bet some of those guys on ford-trucks forums live off of other peoples taxes.

Well I have heard this before and what I guess I need is an education in reference to generating power off an alternator in a car.

Here is my scenario, engine is turning 1000 RPM and the Alternator is generating 14 volts at 40 amps. (using round numbers, play along)

Is the alernator powering the devices in the car or is it charging the battery that powers everything?

Regardless of that answer, the Alternator is producing 40 amps to the devices or the battery, either way, and I turn on every electronic device in the car and draw 30 amps. What happens to the 10 amps I don't use?

Next question, same scenario, I have everything on and drawing 30 amps and turn on a HHO generator that draws 20 amps. Do the lights dim or does the battery start to drain (probably both) but here is the $64 question, does the alternator do anything different? Turn faster? Work harder? I think not.

My understanding is the alternator is turning and creating power, which is either stored or used, and when the battery is fully charged and the devices are not drawing more than the alternator can make then the extra power goes where?

My point is that the alternator is creating power in excess of the cars needs probably better than 50% (if not more) of the time, so if you use it for a radio, an HHO generator, a winch, etc as long as the car is running and your battery is in good shape then what is the problem?

I understand the whole its not "overunity" argument, but if you are using excess power and converting it to something the car can burn (even at 50% efficiency) where is the harm?

The alernator can't work harder than the engine turns but it may need to work longer to get the battery back up to topped off. In the long haul what is the impact?

Any education you can provide (not conjecture please) would be greatly appreciated.

That's only true of older cars. Since the 80s the ECU has been modulating the field current of alternators according to load. Since it's the work done by a magnetic field shoving electrons around in the armature of the alternator that causes the greater proportion of the drag on the motor, turning the magnetic field off, let's say be de-energising the field coils, will also turn the drag off, apart from the frictional drag due to the bearings and belts. As you might guess, this doesn't shove any electrons around and no current is produced at this point. When the ECU sees increased electrical demand, it turns the field coils back on again.

yeah, I was slow posting.

Yeah the major difference is Road Warrior EXPLAINED it and your answer in a word was umm "GEEZ" useless.

So a single wire to the Alternator (shown here) does what you describe yes?



https://www.joeventura.com/hummer/charge.jpg

Geez I had no expectation that you would.
Geez

Alternators do not produce excess electricity, they produce necessary electricity.

Thats why they put a load sensor on your car, so it wont kill the engine when you place a greater load on the charging system.

My VX kicks up the idle speed on fan position 2, with no other loads other than the power necessary to run the engine.

Statements about 20% engine efficiency are wrong. The efficiency of a typical 4 cylinder engine is about 35% when the load is suffecient to maximize the point of operaton on a BSFC map, about 80% load at 1700 RPM.
Increasing the load above 20% by 10% increments does not give you more horsepower at half the cost in fuel. Thats not even 10% additional load above the power necessary to propel the vehicle at a moderate speed.

Efficiency statements that presume average load over normal operational conditions also include 13% idling which is 0 efficiency since the vehicle is stationary.

This hho (browns gas) thing has been going on for at least 20 years. Why would no one bother to dyno a vehicle and really get some factual data?

The cost of renting a dyno?

Give me a break.

Enhanced combustion characteristics. OK, I can find some believability in that.

the problem is when you try to tell me that adding 1/336th of the fuel energy to my engine, you will achieve 50% increase in the combustion efficiency of 1 unit of fuel over 1+1/336th units of fuel.

Dont like the message, so attack the messenger, merely an ancient form of propaganda.

The Dyno will not lie, not a single unbiased dyno test in 30 years?

I can add a bottle of any fuel to my car and improve the mileage, when you only consider the gasoline in the tank as the fuel you are measuring to claim a mileage improvement.

regards
gary

I think that my position has been misconstrued. I have heard people say that the math doesn't matter as long as they see results. I have been waiting for someone to test an hho device in a semi scientific manner for a while (and someone that is non-biased).

this is a gas log entry for "rolling box car" he has a jeep wrangler. he hasn't given up on the idea but just read it. the first few sentences speak volumes to me because this is a person that actually spent money to see this thing work.

Mostly highway miles with hydrogen cell "off"....I repeat, Hydrogrn cell "off". I get better gas mileage with hydrogen off!!! I gassed up at the same station as usual, same gas pump!!!! This is a good figure. Starting to prove...water to gas is not all it's cracked up to be!!! I have an idea...I'm going to test. When the car is in cruise mode...no hydrogen. About 10 seconds before arriving at the base of a hill, turn the hydrogen unit on. It takes about 5-10 seconds for a good hydrogen flow. I have a kill switch that I can turn on and off. Leave the cell on until a second or two before I reach the peak. Turn it off. This is for a car without a EFIE. I have a funny feeling that injecting the hydrogen while the car is in cruise mode is causing too much oxygen for the sensor and it's using more gas then neccessary in that mode. My thought....adding the extra fuel in hard work mode, for a short period of time, may "not" give the computer time enough to respond with extra gasoline fuel on the hill, yet give the engine a little extra juice via hydrogen. The oxygen sensor may see normal emissions until roughly the time it arrives at the top of the hill...Florida only has small hills so they usually only last 15 to 30 seconds....when the emissions go up...the car will be in the end process of going back into non hydrogen / cruise mode. Does anyone have a scan gauge and fuel cell to test how the car responds with quick bursts of hydrogen in "hill mode"? My jeep is a 1992 so I don't believe I can add a scan gauge. Correct me if I'm wrong.

for anyone interested in reading more, check out his entire gas log. it is very interesting. as far as I know, this is the only guy on here that has a gas log with hho information in it. please correct me if I am wrong. I had serious doubts about this working without having any data (especially since no one could supply any) and now I have data confirming what I originally thought

Not sure what you're saying, R.I.D.E. yes peak efficiency is at high load, but efficiency increases with load to that point. I'm only saying that it's because efficiency is awful at low load, that if you add to that load and improve efficiency, you use less extra fuel than you might think because it's more efficient. It's somewhat paradoxical that at best mpg speed, a motor is likely to be operating near it's least efficient, due to the low load demand of steady cruising. That's not news, series hybrid developers aim to run a motor at high load and store the energy. Yes you're using extra energy to make HHO, if your sole purpose in running the motor at all was to make HHO the overall efficiency would suck, however, you're running it to move you and are asking very little of it most of the time, it's not near 35% efficient at this point. Adding load will always use more gas, but adding 10% load could bring it 3 or 4% closer to peak efficency, meaning a relative increase of 15% more efficiency over the low end 20% or so at cruise, such that you are using .85x.3 more fuel rather than 1x.2, thus using 2 units for 20% load while only using 2.5 units for 30% load. So your load has a relative increase of 50% while your fuel consumption only has a relative increase of 25%. So you only have to achieve 50% conversion efficiency with that extra load to get your energy back. If your alternator efficency is 60% and your electrolysis efficiency is 80% you come damn close. You won't do it with a 2 bolts in a jar cell though. So you've made nearly the same BTU value of HHO as it "cost" in gas... but then when you put it back into the motor... MUCH more of the BTU in the H2 gets to the crankshaft than the BTU in the gasoline does. This would be due to differing thermodynamic efficiencies of different fuels in an IC motor. You get that and you get a knock on efficiency effect with higher flame speed promotion.

Unfortunately he's using it essentially backwards to how he needs to. He only had it hooked up to a vacuum port, and vacuum while accelerating or hill climbing is gonna be minimal.

To the car this doesn't matter. All that matters is that the necessary power is supplied. To you it only matters slightly since there is a bit of loss to put power into a battery and pull it back out. It would cost more to put all the energy into the battery then pull it back out than to use it directly from the alternator.

If the alternator field were from a permanent magnet then the power would need to be discarded. Your alternator, like a generator in a power plant, has an electrically variable field controlled by a regulator. The power never got produced nor was that extra power drawn from the belt.

For a 40 amp alternator that is actually limited to 40 amps, it will produce 40 of the amps and the battery will supply the other 10. Run for a while and your lights will dim and eventually everything will go out. Alternator ratings have gone up as gewgaws have gone up because that situation must not happen so long as the alternator is operating properly.

It works harder at the direction of the regulator. The regulator increases the field current to produce more power at the same speed. If you speed the engine up then the faster alternator will produce more power so the regulator will reduce the field to compensate.

If there is no field current then the spinning alternator produces no power, just some air noise and bearing heat. You have witnessed this when the alternator brushes are at the end of their life and no longer make contact. The battery dies rather quickly even though there is a spinning alternator connected.

If a 125 amp alternator were producing 125*12=1500 watts wasting and you were only using 30 amps then the wasted 95*12=1180 watts should be easy to find. Something near the alternator would be glowing red. Don't look, it isn't there. The alternator only produces what is needed.

An ECU is not required to regulate an alternator. Regulators have been used with alternators for a very long time, long before 1980 and ECUs. All the ECU does is to monitor the load and may temporarily reduce or pause production from time to time. Even when the ECU regulates the alternator it is still a regulator that is doing it and the regulation could just as easily be done with an external regulator.

The number of wires doesn't matter. A GM 1-wire alternator has a regulator inside. Alternators are too easy to regulate to not have a regulator.

Embedded.com > Columns: Designing a microcontroller-driven alternator voltage regulator

Severach,
Fabulous response.

Thanks!!

Too many people get the CART BEFORE THE HORSE?

The HORSE is increased mpg.

The CART is some explanation of how or why it is happening.


Practicing BASIC SCIENCE is essentially putting something together and testing it fairly and impartially....not always easy to do...but doable.

So If I build some cells and test them and see an mpg gain (and I have)...I've done what I need to do from my point of view. My next responsibility to my own endeavors is to possibly further improve my results and demonstrate consistent results..to my own satisfaction.

IN NO WAY do I have any responsibility to explain technically or in terms of combustion theory or even particle physics....how and why it happened.

Those who plant themselves in the road and DEMAND an explanation...are just CONFUSED? They are standing on the CART in the middle of the road and are wanting an explanation before they will allow things to go forward.

My advice? When you see these people...just lead your horse around them and go on testing. Validly. :rolleyes:

I do believe that there is a kind of IRONIC reality involved when testing HHO and some other mpg boosting methods....in that you can use the fuel additive/HHO to see more power (and the same or less mpg)....OR you can use it to gain more mpg. Some want to see this as the placebo effect or due to changes in driving techniques. I think it is just good sense. Drive consistently.

My mileage can vary by 18 MPG depending on many variables.

Thats why I said put the car on a dyno where your variables do not exist.

I applaud your success ZUGY, but I see no gas log or other factual data to support your conclusion.

If I tell you you can flap your arms and fly, because I have done it, are you going to jump off the Emprie State Building because I said you cou do so and live.

I hope not.

Any person who can make a HHO generator that works on every vehicle regardless of how efficient it was before the conversion, with unbiased data that proves their position, would convince me to try one on my car.

In a previous post I stated that I had met with two individuals here in eastern Virginia, who were selling HHO generators locally.

They (not I) told me the system would not work well in my Honda. I works better in diesel trucks and larger vehicles. I watched their system working in the van I rode around in with one of the two partners for a whole day while we talked about their system.

Virginia has passed a law that requires the system to be certified to be in compliance with federal emissions laws.

The federal fine is $2500, not sure what the state fine amounts to.

Since you have made it perfectly clear to me that HHO works, with no data or any other confirmation, would you like to deposit a few thousand dollars in my checking account to cover the fines I might incur, when I decide to willfully ignore the laws that could make me guilty of a crime.

regards
gary

I'm trying to explain how I think it all hangs together because I think these things would become more practical if the theory behind them was better understood. Then one can direct development along lines that leverage their strengths, and shore up their weaknesses.

I'm still thinking about how I'm gonna set a system up, because I recognise firstly that good design and efficiency are key to getting clear repeatable results, and because I don't want to drive with a bomb in the front of the car, so I'm hashing and rehashing the details of how best to install and use a system with minimal hazards to either me, or the vehicle.

I think ZugyNA's point is it is the duty of science to explain unexpected results, rather than deny them. If no theories predict those results and they are repeatable, then the theory is bad, not the results. Results come first theory follows with an explanation. I do think though that yes, results could be prepared more thoroughly. I don't think that any company is going to invest much cash in testing though, this is basically unpatentable at this point. 95% of those hawking kits don't seem to know what they're doing, so they probably don't know the first thing about producing convincing results. Some of those that do have a better idea of what they're doing are coming up with somewhat dubious tests to "prove" it works, but that is apparently to compete in the numbers game with those who just make wild claims.

Then the other side of the problem is that people rely more on their gut feeling about science than the science itself... I get real fed up with arguing things like the fact that a bullet fired horizontally will drop at the same rate as one just dropped out of the fingers at muzzle height... the gut feeling is that it "flies" somehow.... nope sorry... gravity works just the same until you get to significant fractions of escape velocity. Anyway, half the people who argue about things never understood their high school science well enough in the first place for it to override their gut. We do however lack a decent analogy for this process...

Maybe think of a baker... if he starts with only flour and water to make bread... he's going to have to leave his dough sitting around for a week or two to catch enough natural yeasts from the atmosphere for the dough to rise. If he does this every time he's not going to make bread very fast. The efficiency of the baker is poor. If he takes a small piece of risen dough (OMG HE CAN'T DO THAT, THAT MEANS THERE'S LESS BREAD!) and saves it, and incorporates it in the next batch of dough, he introduces a culture of yeast directly into the dough and it rises in a day. Thus the baker can make bread much more quickly and easily and becomes more efficient.

Maybe think of a coal mine... winching the coal up the shaft is a slow and tedious process... it can't be got to the surface as fast as it is mined. So the mine owner decides to install a coal powered steam engine to work the winch (OMG HE CAN'T DO THAT, THAT MEANS THERE'S LESS COAL!) increasing the output of the mine substantially.

Fact is, diesel engines use a portion of their output to do work on their input, spark ignition engines use a portion of their output to do work on their input, automatic pistols use a portion of their output to do work on their input.... get over it already.

Road Warrior, I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your knowledge which is obvious to me, and far superior to my own in certain specific fields.

I actually have a specific design for my engine patent that is applicable to a HHO fuel supply. You do not need much compression to ignite hydrogen and oxygen as they come out of a generator.

My focus has been more on the mechanical causes of inefficiency in internal combustion engines, and my design addresses most of the causes of energy losses that are inherent in reciprocating IC engines. My design eliminates the reciprocation of every part in current engines in vehicles worldwide.

You say that is not possible, based on your understanding of engines. I say give me two hours of your time and I will show you it's not only possible, is absolutely practical.

Can an engine magically transform itself into a flywheel storing it's own rotating mass as energy available for application.

Yes

Can you build an engine that has no valve train, no cooling system, no induction system, no necessity to restrict airflow to control power, no connecting rods.

Yes

The same engine can also serve as capacitive storage for regeneration forces when deceleration is necessary.

Yes

Also never idles.

Yes

In another configuration the same basic design serves as an infinitely variable transmission, one in each wheel, that weigh less than the brake components you no longer need, and can regenerate 90% of your deceleration forces.

Yes

In fact after 5 years of banging on doors, thousands of emails, personal trips halfway across the country. 6 trips to my US Senators office, letters to practically every govt agency you can name, I finally got one person to listen objectively.

This fall Virginia Tech will build a prototype of my design, CAD everything, and build a testable example that can give us real efficiency calculations, that if they approach 90%, will change the planet in the next 50-100 years.

If the efficiency reaches the point that I believe it will, it could be one of the most important designs ever concieved on this planet.

Do you believe me?

By Christmas this year it will not matter whether you believe me or not. It will either be the powertrain of every vehicle on the planet within 20 years, or it will be the first design of an evolution of such a powertrain.

Will I ever see a dime from my original idea?

Probably not.

Could it could cost me my life.

Possibly.

You see I am kind of old fashioned in my beliefs, one of those gullible old dummies that thinks each person on this planet has a responsibility to leave it in better shape than he found it.

Every bit of knowledge about increasing the efficiency in vehicles that I have learned over a lifetime is incorporated into this design.

I have stated before when the vehicle is properly designed, it will not be possible to improve its mileage by hypermiling, because the vehicle will hypermile itself.

Any person with no knowledge whatsoever can jump into this vehicle start it up and go, without any skills whatsoever and get fabulous mileage compared to what is available today. it doesn't matter whether its a 2000 pound car or a 7500 pound SUV it will still get almost twice the current mileage with power to handle every concievable situation.

Believe me?

If you don't I can certainly understand it. It's the holy grail of automotive design. Why would I be so egotistical to think that I have the solution?

I like to think of it as bone headed determination, and a never say quit attitude. Kind of like the guy who uses his face to break your fists in a fight.

regards
gary

Yes, I understand some of the mechanical compromises of reciprocating engines, and know that flywheels are one of the most compact storage devices known to man (Where the heck did that Garrett research project of the 70s end up???) So I'm quite sure you probably "have something" with that. University based H2 experimenters (Of the hydrogen is the fuel of the future, just don't ask where it comes from camp) have hit a brick wall with conventional arrangements at around 50% overall efficiency, when the thermodynamics say there's quite a chunk more to be gotten, so obviously any kind of hydrogen and conventional motor is not the ultimate answer, it's still wasteful. If you wanna do something about your own FE right now though, you're not gonna swap out your whole drivetrain.

Anyway, yes, any design that gets the most possible use out of the energy that pushes the pistons is gonna improve efficiency drastically also, I admire your sticking to your guns on that idea.

Surely Virginia Tech has built something by now???

There was some discussion about Virginia Tech's results about a month back. Don't have a link handy

As soon as I have the time I'll put an HHO jug on my Focus. The math Im working with is that a cell using 15 to 40 amps will produce 2 litres of HHO per minutes. From what I got off Youtube, they have a guy who ran a 93 Ford Escort 1.9 litre and got 50 mpg highway with the HHO.

I know I have mentioned this before, there is a video on the web of a camera in the cylinder of a Ford Taurus V6, even with fuel injection, fuel is in huge droplets and spins around, the spark does not make a perfect flame kernal, filling the cylinder in a text book fashion. Insted the turbulent explosion burns areas of the cylinder and some areas dont light at all. You can still see the suspended droplets blowing out the exhaust.

What I feel happens is that the HHO surrounds the fuel and aids combustion, it is a gas and not an atomized liquid. The increased fuel burning lets the O2 sensor read cold and leans the mixture increasing MPG. I understand it works well on diesels, also amonia somehow aids diesel efficiency.

Once you go over 2.0 litres, then the HHO cell has to get larger, now we have to have twice the amperage. I have seen cells as large as fish tanks in some pickups. One thing I think can help the amperage is a PWM or Pulse Wave Modulator. By sending a frequency through the electrolyte, it makes the same amount of HHO with less amps.

The basic math of HHO sepparation is that Hydrogen is a positivly charged atom and Oxygen is negative. Place water and electrolyte in a field and atoms sepparate producing the HHO gas.

Mythbusters really let me down by blowing hydrogen gas down the carb of an old V8, it back fired and Mythbusters called Hydrogen dangerous. They then built a beautiful HHO cell and filled it with water and no electrolyte, hooked a car battery to it and the cell did nothing, they then called the myth busted. Well these lab guys didn't do the experiment right.

On the other hand Mythbusters did a great test on vegetable oil diesels, they took an old Mercedes 300D drove it and got 34 MPG, they then replaced the fuel with Wesson oil and the car got 29 MPG. They proved a diesel can run on vegetable oil and not petrolium based diesel. In this instance, Mythbusters got it right.

Im really weighed down with work now, no garage and a street I have to work on the car car in 90 degree heat and high humidity. As soon as fall gets around I have a place under the hood I can stick an HHO jug.

Keep tossing the HHO potato around and someone will make a basket.

We've got a guy (Ford Man) who gets 40-50mpg from a 1988 Escort and a 1997 Escort...without HHO.

1997 Escort, lifetime average 44.34, including a recent 49.85mpg tank:
https://www.gassavers.org/garage/view/1711
https://www.gassavers.org/garage/viewgaslog/1711

1988 Escort, almost 500,000 miles on it, lifetime average 43.79, had one 49.32mpg tank:
https://www.gassavers.org/garage/view/1664
https://www.gassavers.org/garage/viewgaslog/1664

LOL


But on a serious note, H2 injection is BS designed to separate suckers from their money. Some people will believe anything.

Is that anything like the Uranium PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator?

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...69fd811527.jpg

https://www.fuelly.com/attachments/fo...b70a9cedce.gif

you know PWMs (pulse WIDTH modulators) do have a purpose. they are used in industrial applications for motor controls that adjust motor speeds. they simulate sine waves. they can also be used to adjust voltages in a voltage regulator and chop up the DC in a DC/DC converter so that the output is variable.

it seems that all the technology that makes HHO work (or not) has been borrowed from so many different places and the common man doesn't really understand what the use of these devices are.

good luck (or whatever)

Pulse width modulation is found in modern cars, a lot. For example, modern locking torque converters use PWM to lock gradually instead of just being on or off.