Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

HHO kits - Do they really work?

frank74frank74 Posts: 2
edited April 2014 in Honda
Looking for people that have tried these kits and their input....I have been doing some research on this and it seems that the people that accually have them say they do work and the people that don't are very scepticle about them......your thoughts


  • frank74frank74 Posts: 2
    Guess not!!!
  • dalton95dalton95 Posts: 1
    I have been experimenting with a Hydrogen Generator for several weeks now. I've tried several different designs, stainless steel plates work the best for me. I tried the plastic with stainless wire wrapped around it. Within 1 week the wire was very brittle and weak.Tweaking here and tweaking there, it does work, I have a 94 Nissan Sentra. The generator I have on it now, is working the best so far. I'm not sure about mpg yet, but I filled up the gas tank and drove 193 miles and the gas hand now sits just below 3/4 of a tank. Before the generator, I had to use at least a half tank to get 200 miles. I tried the O2 extender that I've read about, it was only a couple bucks, so I figured what the hell. This wonderful little device is CRAP. It actually hurt my mileage, so , of course it's gone now. Give it a try, it's cheap and idiot proof....a kid could build one of these....Good Luck.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    You'll need a little better evidence and a bit more accurate information than assessing it using your gas guage as to how much fuel was used to declare "it works".

    This idea/technology has been around since the early 1900's. If it actually did what it claimed, you'd think that by now it would have been proven.

    The Environmental Protection Agency evaluates after-market retrofit devices like this, but only at the request of a manufacturer, and only after an independent laboratory has conducted preliminary tests showing “significant improvement” in fuel economy or emissions reduction.

    To date, no manufacturer has applied for these tests, and the U.S. government has not addressed hydrogen fuel enhancement.

    The clincher for me that this is snake oil is the claim by folks that this is being "actively supressed by 'big oil' so they can maintain their profits.

    Right. And the goverment is probably running HHO kits on all the vehicles in Area 51 :P
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    hi dalton
    did you buy a kit or make this device yourself? If you made it yourself would you please provide a website that gives detailed insructions. Also now that you've had a few more days of driving, what is your actual mileage? I would like to try it myself .It seems that's the only way to know for sure if it works.. since there are so many claims for and against it.Fill me in thanks
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    You could chronicle your results on your CarSpace page and even blog about it there. If youhaven't set your CarSpace page up yet, it's really easy to do. If you have any questions about it, just click on my username and pop me an email and I'll be happy to help youget it going.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 4,098
    " If you made it yourself would you please provide a website that gives detailed insructions. "

    Ah, but that is just the point. There are websites selling the information, not providing the information.

    These people are out to make a buck - and you are providing that buck .
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    doesn't sound like dalton is selling anything.sounds like he built it himself.lets give him a chance to respond. I just posted some info about an operating hydrogen generator I looked at today. the post is on the 'hybrid fuel cell cars forum' here at edmunds.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 4,098
    "doesn't sound like dalton is selling anything.sounds like he built it himself.lets give him a chance to respond."

    It is against Forum rules to directly sell - the posts would be yanked by the moderator.

    It appears to me that what he is doing is promoting the idea so people will go to a website. It looks a lot like the "pump and dump" spam I often see in my spam catcher.

    But in any case it doesn't make any difference how he responds. If the technology is viable, it would be tested by an independent publication. Until I see such verification, I'm basically ignoring these things...
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    this guy dalton didn't mention a website. I asked if he would direct me to one. I meant a site with good hands-on info other than some company selling 'gizmos'. I did look at one today built and installed by a backyard mechanic from info gleaned off the net.Cost him $38 in parts. Looked simple and he swears he's getting 11 more mpg in his little old '85 chevy luv 4cyl. truck running a gasoline hydrogen mix. He's a local guy with no axe to grind or anything to sell .I suppose he could be lying to me but I don't believe so. Of course, I could be lying right now to you. A healthy skepticism is always good, but it seems there are posters here who wouldn't believe an airplane could fly had they been alive pre- Wright brothers era. I'm going to try to make one for my truck as soon as I can get a little more info. I still would like to hear more from some who have tried to make one if they aren't afraid of being ridiculed here.
  • stevedebistevedebi LAPosts: 4,098
    "I still would like to hear more from some who have tried to make one if they aren't afraid of being ridiculed here. "

    I don't intend any ridicule. If you get it to work, contact one of the car review organizations (maybe EDMUNDS!), and get the concept validated. It would be worthwhile news if one could actually get a 33% increase.

    Until then, I am skeptical.
  • catamcatam Posts: 331
    There seems to be a complete lack of even anecdotal data showing benefit.

    Ususally on threads like this proponents would at the very least post some observed data, like before conversion I got x mpg, now I am averaging x+5 mpg over 3 tanks of gas.

    Everyone here is talking about, "one guy somewhere".

    Please I'd like to at least hear from 1 person his actual data. ie I gat 300 miles on 12 gal before, after conversion I got 386 miles on the same 12 gal.

    My personal experience suggests we would all be better off reading about hypermiling and uses the techniques there that make sense to each of us.
    Certainly everyone can inflate there tires to the max on the sidewall, go easy on the gas/ brake, etc.

    I do the hypermiling thing and my last 3 tanks have been 42.1, 42.9, and 43.8 MPG respectively. I am improving my technique I'd guess. at any rate this represents a 50% improvement over my car's 29 mpg hwy rating.
  • My freinds I am new to this forum, so hello to all!. i'm a rep with a company that sells HHO units, I will not mention the name or the website because I don't know if I am permitted to do so. We have a standing challenge, we gaurantee that if the car does not get at least 50% increase in mpg, you win the challenge and receive $5000, and visa versa, we bring the car to your location, you can have mechanics check the car, you can have the media there, engineers, anybody. If anybody is up to the challenge let me know.If I'm permitted to post the website let me know. I'm not trying to sell any thing on this forum, only trying to share info, and assure you HHO does work if installed and tuned correctly. Tks Paul
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    Having never seen an explanation that makes even the slightest bit of sense, I doubt you can deliver. Good advertising, though :sick:
  • Just take the challenge, and make yourself $5,000, The website has all the technical information you could ever want plus videos. I dont know if I can post the website or not, but if you send me an e-mail address, I will gladly send you the website address. Not advertizing my freind, but I sure can use $5,000.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    You'll need to find another sucker. "Inventions" that violate basic laws of physics (perpetual motion machines, anyone?) don't interest me.
  • I'm not trying to find a sucker, just educate if possible, as you can see i'm not posting the website or trying to sell you anything, i thought the purpose of this website is to share ideas. There is no violation of the laws of physics here, any scientist will tell you as far as fuel is concerned. Fuel in a gas state is much more efficent in a gaseous state than in a liquid state and burns much cleaner. The company I represent are now in negotiations with a worldwide Fortune 100 Co. An announcement of these negotiations will be in Mid September. Stay tuned
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    Information shared. Let's move on because we're starting to sound like advertsing now.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    And the BS begins...."Fuel in a gas state is much more efficent in a gaseous state than in a liquid state and burns much cleaner" So that's why CNG vehicles typically have lower power output than equivalent gasolive vehicles.

    Can you make hydrogen? Sure. Can you save gas doing it? Absolutely not. And any physicist will tell you that. I'd suggest waiting for your 'Fortune 100 Co.' ship to come in. Another typical come-on from folks such as you... :sick:
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Why haven't any of the major Car Magazines tested out these kits and given a report? About a month ago someone reported the same $5000 gimmick and hit a dead end when he tried to collect. I am sure you have gotten yourself sucked into a MLM or Ponzi scheme and are just trying to find enough gullible folks to get back your investment. Edmund's is a hard place to sell that type of gadget. You would be better off on a non car website where people do not understand how an engine works.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,077
    Won't even fly there - these posts get zapped by users on craigslist all the time, even when posted outside of the automotive section. It seems that even non-car people have common sense :)


    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • Erm, liquids CANNOT burn, solids CANNOT burn, only gases can burn (and yes, that applies to logs), which is one of the reasons cars work so poorly when cold - the gas has to become vaporized before it can burn, which is why we have expensive injectors to create as much surface area as possible by making it into tiny droplets.

    CNG cars make less power because the CNG has less BTU's per gallon. The fuel economy record (for a 'normal' car is held by a car which burned normal pump gas but which metered it in it's gaseous form. Incidentally this was in the 1970's and it was made by GM...

    I'm highly suspicious of anything which claims to improve fuel economy, and I'm a scientist so I demand proof. There is just a slight chance that the HHO could improve the combustion by a fraction higher than the energy losses in it's creation (which would be very significant) but I remain unconvinced until someone proves it to me. Step up to the plate HHO kit vendors - prove it on mainstream TV and maybe we'll take notice, until then I'm going to assume it's in the same category as snake oil.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    This is how engines work - they transform chemical energy (gasoline/methane/hydrogen/whatever) into mechanical energy (powers the car, the alternator, the airconditioner, etc) and heat energy (removed by the radiator or lost out the exhaust pipe). Gasoline internal combustion engines can transform about 20% of the chemical energy into mechanical energy, the remaining 80% is lost as heat. Therefore, even if we assume 100% conversion efficiency for the hydrogen convervsion (impossible), the HHO devices still have to (repeat, have to) lose 80% of the energy used to create the hydrogen when it is burned. So there is not 'a slight chance that HHO could improve combustion by a fraction higher than the energy losses in it's creation". It is absolutely impossible. A 5 to 1 losing game. End of story.
  • OK, fair point when taken at face value and I would mostly agree if the claim was that the energy was released purely from combustion of the hydrogen. I also agree absolutely that the 20% energy extraction is typical of an ICE but note when reading some of the HHO sites that they claim an efficiency increase in the energy extraction process and there's the critical difference.

    It is very possible (and indeed proven) that the percentage of energy converted into mechanical energy can be increased by slowing the flame propagation in the combustion chamber causing a reduction in irreversible thermal looses, resulting in shorter injector pulses and therefore better fuel economy. Incidentally the current max values for high efficiency Otto cycle engines running on conventional fuels is around 32% conversion of energy into mechanical energy, whereas the max for Diesels is presently around 52% so I'm sorry but there is no 'have to'. Theoretical maximum hovers around 59% based on the Carnot cycle between the adibatic combustion temperature of pump gas (about 2300 degrees Kelvin) and the admitted max working temperature of steel (about 925 degrees Kelvin, and note we're limiting it based on steel, not any exotic ceramics). Some of us in the petrochemical engineering field have worked on hydrated alcohol mixes in steel Otto cycle motors and achieved between 35% and 38% extraction efficiency as a result, I suspect we can achieve more too so don't throw all hope of increased fuel economy away. Think about it this way - the O2 sensors in your injection system prevent very much variation in the fuel exiting your exhaust system and yet you can radically change the mechanical efficiency of your motor by being gentle (or not) with your accelerator despite the pumping losses actually decreasing when you open it all the way up... Most of that difference is in the thermal losses because the expansion rate of the burning fuel mixture is limited, which is why your exhaust temperatures increases.

    I respect your opinion and maintain a great deal of common ground with you in being cynical of these devices but must note that there is a large potential for improvement in most ICE motors presently for sale. I therefore remain open minded about the possibility of devices which will help to improve the energy extraction efficiency of Otto cycle engines and await results from HHO system manufacturers with bated breath - until then I'll continue working on the fuel development.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    OK, I'll go with your 32% (my searches turned up only the 18-20% number). So, even using that number, only 1/3 of the combustion results in mechanical energy. So the mechanical energy used to generate the hydrogen is reduced by 2/3 in the combustion process. A losing game, 3 to one. To believe the claims of the web sites requires belief that a little hydrogen added to the fuel radically alters the combustion process. Sorry, no evidence of this from outside sources can be found. The claims of 50-100% improvement in economy are outrageous, right? And have you not found the vast majority of claims in these web sites pure nonsense??

    Finally, my opinion really is immaterial. If there was any truth to any of this, half the Fortune 500 companies would be pouring billions into the technology, if only to reduce the costs they are now bearing from $4 gas. Not happening.
  • Yes - most of the HHO websites are mumbo-jumbo, pseudo science and meaningless rubbish. At best it could improve the mechanical energy extraction by a small amount (and yes, I'll make some and try it using an external energy source to isolate the effect), set that against alternator wear, unknown side effects and high generation losses and it seems extremely unlikely it has any tangible positive effect. On the plus side it's a large scale experiment in my field of expertise so I'm keen to see the results before I write it off as a total loss.

    For what it's worth, I won't be planning on changing anything on my own car - I'll simply buy a Honda Diesel next year and hold onto my Porsche, which despite being able to get to 60 MPH in under 6 seconds still gets 34MPG(not at the same time, I might add)... Those Germans might have had a few bad ideas in the 30's but they sure know how to get the most from a flat-6.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    "I won't be planning on changing anything on my own car - I'll simply buy a Honda Diesel next year and hold onto my Porsche"

    Good idea - I'm holding off my next car to get a look at the Honda diesel, along with other that should be coming out in the next year or so.
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    Nice to see there is someone out there willing to get their hands dirty and try a little actual experimentation rather than simply stating "imposssible"! "defies the laws of physics"
    Go for it techquipment . Introduce some hydrogen into the gasoline oxygen mix in an ICE and see if the gasoline doesn't burn more efficiently and thereby produce more power and 'bang for the buck' ... and more than enough to compensate for energy used to produce the elec. current.
    Side effects...that's another issue.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    First prize for grasping at straws, Brian. If you have some facts or documentation, great. Doubt it...
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    Why is it on most all forums there is always one person who seems to feel this little domain belongs to him/her so, like a dog, goes around pissing on everything in a pathetic attempt to intimidate others?

    I, for one, welcome techquipment's willingness to do some hands on experimentation. He obviously is a bright person with an open mind.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,091
    Why do I continue to comment? Because, in my humble opinion, HHO is a scam, and that makes those who sell it, well, you fill in the blank.

    There are three reasons that no individual should spend a penny on "HHO":
    1. It can't work. You cannot get extra energy out of an engine by generating hydrogen when you lose at least 2/3 of the energy when you burn it.
    2. The web sites lie. They are filled with nonsensical jargon, unsupported claims, and basic lies about how engines work. I have not seen one that would get past the slightest bit of technical review.
    3. If you don't believe 1 and 2, believe this: If these things worked, there would be hundreds of reputable corporations world-wide building them, if only for their own use. Also, every government agency (think about the Post Office! the Army! every government, school district, whatever!) would jump at the chance to reduce their fuel costs. NONE OF THIS IS HAPPENING! And there is a clear reason why - it doesn't work.
  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Posts: 11,077
    not to let this get personal. Personally-directed comments make posts disappear.


    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    As you can see this idea has been around a long time.

    Research in 1975 examined hydrogen enhanced gasoline in lean combustion. John Houseman and D.J Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers titled "On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine", and F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy, also of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, titled "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline

    I have yet to see one in a legitimate store. A place you can take things back to when they do not work as claimed. Don't you wonder just a little why they are not sold at Costco or some other legitimate store? Or do you believe these fellows that start a Ponzi scheme when they say they turned down $100 billion in cash for their invention? Or that some guy who ran his car across country only on two cups of water then turned up dead.

    I don't want $5000 if it don't work. That may not cover the cost of a new engine. I don't want to try tracking a con artist down to the Cayman Islands when he leaves town with all the loot. When I have something installed on my car, I want to be able to go back to that company and get my money back. That is not easy when you buy from a website that has no address or just a PO box.

    Those are just a couple reasons we are skeptical. I am waiting to read about the test being done by Popular Mechanics. I would trust them to give an honest report.
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    yep. I'm skeptical too. That's healthy. But I am willing to listen to those who say they have tried it and it works. I've talked to one and looked it over in his truck. Of course there are scammers out there and you can find them in every field. For instance; hair tonics or procedures 'Gauranteed to grow hair" have been a staple of scammers for decades (centuries almost). The fact that scammers have fed off the idea does not prove that hair can't be grown in bald spots.
    I've seen some very interresting videos on youtube on the subject of hydrogen generators in autos. Lots of scammers there too but some are obviously not.
    A couple of reasons off the top of my head why major investors may not have looked seriously at the possibility are...
    -very little incentive (in this country)to improve mileage til this past gas crunch

    -people are scared to death of hydrogen

    -perhaps the wear and tear on auto engines and their components from burning hydro/gasoline outwieghs the benfits
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    I meant to ask what did the above mentioned articles have to say about hydrogen enhanced vehicles? I would like to read them.
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,450
    Here is the link with all the references. Lot to read about the process...
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    thanks. I took a look at the wikpedia site. At first glance It would seem to back up claims of improved economy and significant reduction in toxic emissions, which by the way, is another issue. Why haven't we required stricter emission standards? I think it all boils down to complacency.

    I'll read up on the references on the wikpedia site. looks like a wealth of information.
  • EVERY forum on this subject has one or two trolls who seem to police the postings and vigorously jump on anyone who says that HHO works. Why do you suppose that is? Where does their passion come from? What's in it for them?

    Think about it...

    There's a public relations technique made famous by IBM called "FUD." FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt." The technique was used extensively by IBM back in the 50s to spread distrust, usually by word of mouth, for competitors' emerging products and technologies. It helped IBM keep companies like Xerox, DEC and Olivetti down. Could virtual FUD be happening here? Do you suppose the car companies and oil companies would ever think of applying an IBM business technique to the internet age???

    I have a cousin who experimented with a coffee can and an apple sauce jar filled with water to squeeze 20% more mpg out of his 20-year-old pickup. Saw it over the weekend. It's real. It works. And he hasn't even done any of the fancy electronic stuff yet (pulse width modulator, etc,) Seeing is believing, trolls. And more and more people are seeing HHO work every day. FUD on all you want. We don't need no Honda Clariity or $80 fill-ups. You are not going to be able to control HHO!!!!

    PS: The key to HHO's success is that it lets you turn any car into a gasoline/HHO hybrid. All this "defying the laws of physics FUD" may apply if you tried to run your car on HHO alone. Guess none of the naysayers was expecting a hybrid approach.

  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    Let's stop the name calling. Any further postings that engage in namecalling will be removed.

    Those of us who have doubts about the effectiveness of HHO kits have been pretty clear about it. We need more than "my cousin did it with a coffee can and apple sauce jar filled with water".

    All we have heard is that someone SAYS it works. If it really were THAT easy, it would be out on the market and people would be flocking to it in droves.

    When an independent testing group comes out and acheives repeatable, verifiable results, I'll believe it.

    But I'm not gonna hold my breath. :P
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    "If it really were THAT easy, it would be out on the market and people would be flocking to it in droves."
    While I understand your logic, apparently that is not always the case. The wikipedia site mentioned above gives links to independant tests done by credible groups that do confirm that gasoline inhanced with hydrogen made onboard through electrolisis does increase fuel efficiency ( more power, increased mpg) and decreases toxic emissions. I just read them. And again I want to point out that emissions is something it seems no one really cares much about. To me, even if there were no fuel savings from enriching gasoline w/hydrogen, cleaning up the emissions is just as important and the tests seem to indicate that cleaner/leaner emissionsare easily obtained.
    While I don't geneally subscribe to conpiricy theories like the one above (and he may be right) I do think in this case one reason for lack of commecial interrest (other than scammers claiming 50% mpg boost) is that some of the tested ideas only produce from 4-10% increases in mpg. When you balance the limited savings with the cost of having a system installed professionally in a vehicle, the upfront costs probably outweigh the benifits.
    But... building and installing one (hydro/generator) yourself seems like a way for someone looking for fuel savings to find some relief. I could certainly use some.
    I'll post some quotes from the studies in a later post for those not interrested in looking them up.
  • brian76brian76 Posts: 39
    I only THOUGHT I was going to post quotes!. Having more trouble cutting and pasting quotes than it would be to build a hydro/generator.. Sorry. Just read the reports listed as references at the wikapedia site above.
  • Subtle twist there on your part... I didn't write "my cousin DID it with a coffee can and apple sauce jar." I said he "experimented" with these materials. Very crude experiment on an old vehicle. The point is -- it worked. My cousin -- a stone mason with no science background -- is able to generate hydrogen for his pickup truck using a coffee can and an apple sauce jar. Sorry if that doesn't fit your template of how new technologies emerge.

    You wrote "When an independent testing group comes out and acheives repeatable, verifiable results, I'll believe it." Well good. Have a seat. In 1903, two bicycle mechanics built the first airplane out of bicycle chains, sprockets and spokes. After Kitty Hawk, they took their bicycle parts back to Dayton and flew out of a cow pasture for five years. It was 1908 before the "independent testing groups" finally caught on. History is full of stories like this. You don't need guys in lab coats walking around with clipboards to make something real. HHO is real. You probably would have pooh-poohed the idea that a pile of of bicycle parts could fly over a cow pasture until some egghead tapped you on the shoulder and said "yes, that thing is flying..." Fine. No skin off my nose.

    I guess my ongoing question is --- why do you get so worked up -- so passionate -- about denying that a cheap, low-tech HHO hybrid might work? Is it because it's so cheap and low-tech that a stone mason can make one, cutting out the guys in the lab coats? Seems like that's just what the Wilbur and Orville did!
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    You make my point. He didn't even do it, he just experimented. I gave him too much credit. But then you say "it worked". So did he do it or not? If it worked, then he did it right? See why some of us doubt these claims?

    If I did an "experiment" that yielded a 20% gain in mileage, how long do you think it would take for me to start a company and start selling my system to an automaker? What car company would NOT want this system to be exclusively theirs to give them an edge on their competitors. This would be an absolute lock to make the inventor more money than you could imagine.

    The point is that people have been making the same claims about this idea for at least 30 years that I've seen and not one has panned out as a commercial success. If this idea actually did what people believed it did, it would already be out of the backyard labs and in general use. It's not that I'm not giving the technology a chance. As far as I can tell, it's had more than enough of a chance for someone to make a go of it. The fact that nobody has speaks volumes. But that won't stop scammers from selling you the plans to do it yourself.

    The difference with the Wright brothers is that they actually made it work. They weren't claiming flight was possible and offering vague anecdotes about someone else experimenting with flight. They built a wind tunnel to experiment on different model wings studying lift and drag. It's all very well documented. They weren't the first to build and fly gliders but they built on the success of prior designs while they worked on the problem of powered and controlled flight. That was their success, inventing a system of aircraft controls that made fixed wing flight possible because as a result of glider crashes they realized that without control, flight was not practical.

    Are we at the "glider stage" with HHO kits? If so, then we've been in it for at least 30 years without getting off the ground.

    I you want some real background, try reading about BioPerformance gas pills. That scam has been around for 50 years. They sound promising too. Read the copy of one of the folks promising you a 30% mileage bump by using the pill:

    A company in Perrysburg, Ohio, claims it has created a "gas pill" that can save motorists money at the pump, according to the recent World News reports.

    Recent ads in newspapers nationwide are promising a break from the continually rising costs of gas by as much as much 30 percent, with a "bio performance fuel pill" for the gas tank.

    I have used the gas pill... On one car I got five more miles per gallon. I also know a dozen other people who have used the pill and are getting better mileage.

    Most of the expert doubters just simply claim it can't be real... or it would have been around before now.

    People are just trying to live the American dream and if... this gas pill really works and saves them money... Imagine the potential growth of the bio performance pill industry and its potential impact on the big oil corporations!

    Sound familiar?
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    Mike Allen at Popular Mechanics is conducting tests on an HHO kit.

    Read it for yourself, but allow me to summarize:

    He had the HHO kit built by a reputable company using plans found online.

    He installed it and got it working.

    In steady-state, flat road testing he saw no difference in mileage.

    He's holding out final judgement until he can do testing on a dynamometer.

    He spoke with one of the purveyors of these kits and - are you sitting down? - the seller says the "HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes."

    Uh huh

    You need and he will sell you "a system of modifications that disables the engine management's computer and makes the engine run extremely lean—as lean as 20:1. That's far from the normal 14.7:1. The hydrogen is necessary to let the ultralean mix burn completely, he claims. There's also a heater for the fuel to promote complete vaporization, and some additives for the fuel and oil to complete his system. "

    These mods come under the category of tampering with a federally-mandated emissions control system, making it impossible to pass the underhood visual inspection component of many state smog inspections.

    Gee, I had a 1981 Sentra that got about 54 mpg on the highway, but my 1996 with the same size engine only got about 42 on the highway. If had removed or disabled the emmissions controls on the '96 I just bet I would have seen a mileage increase as well.

    It will be interesting to see the results of the dynamometer testing.
  • Lawyerly word games. He "experimented" with it, he didn't "do" it. Yawn. Yeah, he experimented and he did it. Just one guy with a truck, a coffee can and an apple sauce jar. He's a stone mason. I think you're expecting anyone who makes HHO work to rush out and start a company and have a contract with Costco tomorrow.

    The Wright Brothers were able to "experiment" with flight because as bicycle mechanics their time was pretty open during the winter months. As a stone mason, maybe this winter my cousin will really get down to business on this. I'll let you know. In the meantime, please explain your passion for not even considering that cheap, crude HHO hybrid might just work.

    All the "defies the laws of physics" arguments go out the window because the HHO hybrid concept still uses gasoline! Does a car air conditioner defy the laws of physics? A cheap, crude HHO generator only uses about as much electricity as a car air conditioner!!!!
  • I'm a purveyor of that system also, these systems DO NOT come under the federally mandated emissions control anti-tampering act. There are hundreds of cars with this system on them, we gaurantee you will get at least 50% increase in fuel mileage or your money back, most vehicles get more than 50%, most 4 cylinders get 100% or more. As I posted b4 we are in negotiations now with a Fortune 100 company, and a annoucement in mid september. My website has all the information you need to know about HHO. With videos of installation, components, how they all work etc,etc,etc. If I can post my website let me know, its for information purposes only, If not thats ok I dont want to be accused of coming to this forum to only sell a product. Dont get me wrong I would love to sell a boatload of these systems, but i understand this forum is about information and not selling a product, but my site i beleive has more and more accurate information than anywhere else. If you want just give me an e-mail address and I'll send you the website. We still have the $5,000 challenge anyone? We use our car. and a 3rd party to hold the money.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    I'm not against the idea of it working. It would be FANTASTIC if it actually worked.

    But there's nothing to show that it does work beyond people who simply say that it will or does work.

    The Popular Mechanics article is the first credible stuff I've seen as far as real world testing of the concept, and initially is showing the idea does nothing. Even someone pushing the idea says that the HHO kit is only a "catalyst" that allows "other modifications" to the engine to work. What a surpirse. When pinned down, there's always reason the HHO kit by itself does nothing.

    The laws of physics never go out the window. The same arguement is going on surrounding ethanol with some claiming that you can mix gasoline with a fuel that has less energy per unit volume than gasoline and get better mileage perfomance. It just doesn't work that way, no matter how much people might want it to.
  • lilelvislilelvis Posts: 82
    From what I have gleaned from other forums, I have noticed the following:

    Apparently, HHO does not (purportedly) work by using the engine to create hydrogen from which it will then get the extra energy. As many have posted, that is physically impossible. However, rather than using the hydrogen as the source of energy, the hydrogen is simply used to enhance the combustion of gasoline.

    Self serving websites aside, I have seen anecdotal evidence from people in other forums that have seen gains from HHO systems. None of this was scientific-repeatable testing, but enough to be encouraged.

    If HHO does work (which i am open to believe) nobody seems to be able to show long term effects (i.e. you get 20% better mpg and need a new engine in 20K miles). Perhaps that is why these systems are not widely used (if they work).

    Every HHO website I have seen has been full of blatantly wrong information. It is hard to buy into somebody's logic when their science is clearly flawed. If you want to be an expert on something, you should know WHY it works.

    Forget the conspiracy theories please. People just want to see independant/repeatable evidence that it works, know why it works, and know it won't harm their vehicles. Those are pretty simple requests, yet finding those answers has proven extremely difficult. Maybe it will just take more time for testing - but I have not seen it yet.

    Maybe somebody can direct me to the info . . .

    This is a good discussion when it stays on topic and some people open their minds and other people take their foil hats off. :P
  • lilelvislilelvis Posts: 82
    I totally agree with you, pf_flyer, that you can't make energy from nothing. However, you may be able to use another substance to improve the the combustion of another. If a gallon of gas has a given amount of energy in it - you will never get anymore energy out than that amount. BUT - if current combustion processes only allow you to get, say 50% of the energy out of it, there is another 50% that goes untapped. This has nothing to do with conservation of energy - it has to do with efficiency. (Note: I pulled those numbers out of my *** just as an example)

    I think that MAY be theory behind HHO. I'm not saying that is HOW it works, I'm not saying it DOES work. I'm just saying there may be a way to get more USEABLE energy out of a gallon of gas. But there just doesn't seem to be any info out there to determine that with respect to HHO.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 9,403
    HHO is not a new concept. It's been around for quite some time and to date, nobody has proven it to actually increase gas mileage.

    People can talk all the psuedo-science they want and make it sound plausible, just like the gas pills, but I've been around the block more than a few times and this reeks of a gimmick designed for one thing... to make money selling it to as many people as possible before packing up and moving on to the next "solution to your problem".

    I'd count it as promising if the folks at Popular Mechanics come back from the dynamometer testing and say, "Hey, there's something to this." But I have serious doubts that that will be the result.
  • Popular Mechanics - Schmopular Mechanics! I'd rather draw a parallel to the bicycle mechanics! In my family we've read Popular Mechanics since at least 1936 -- there's a copy on my bookshelf! I quit getting it about five years ago after it became sooooo commercial. The articles almost seem to be related to who's advertising in that particular issue! Popular Mechanics is never going to really tell anyone how to build a cheap crude HHO hybrid system. No one could make any real money on it! PM's advertising clients would raise hell with the PM ad managers, who would raise hell with the PM publisher, who would raise hell with the PM editors. That's the way it works in the ad business!

    PS: There's basically nothing in HHO hybrid systems for the technocrats. The materials cost next to nothing. And what's the gubmint going to do -- tax water?
This discussion has been closed.