By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Let's me start with a basic fact: It takes more energy to dissociate hydrogen and oxygen from water than one can get from burning the hydrogen so produced.
So what is the basis for even considering that HHO will add to our energy supply?
What seems to be happening here is that the HHO scam is being mixed into other devices, such as ECM manipulation and other gadgets that are potentially harmful to the engine---in order to produce some kind of results.
You might say it's like attaching an HHO device AND a sail to your car and then claiming the small mileage gain to the HHO device and failing to mention the sail.
This kind of obfuscation of course only delays the inevitable.
2- Mileage before was close to 35 mpg. Mileage after is 80+.
3- No modifications, but trashed original alternator in a month.
4- No information on emissions yet. Not required here. Car is sound, all systems work and it is well maintained.
5- My sons work car is driven 78 miles one way to work. 156 miles daily, 5 and sometimes 6 days a week. Mainly interstate speeds. 10 gallon tank. Fills tank once a week,unless he works saturday.
6- Will ask him to keep exact track of miles and gallons used again starting monday, 9 march 2009.
I think I said before, that the car had over 200,000 miles on it when we put the generator on it, about 7 months ago. The car does sit outside, and He had to empty the generator when he stopped for long periods of time and refill it before driving again. We had several mornings that were below 0 degrees, and the car started every day. In fact, I do not know of any car fitted with hho that didnt start every day or any of the farm machinery used in snow removal.
Another question was asked about diesels. Yes it works on diesel engines too,except for that ford that has the pre ignition chamber.
Have you or would you allow the vehicle to be driven by a third party to verify your claims?
Why not call your local TV station and tell them what you've done and allow a reporter to test drive the car?
What you've told us is a start and a nice story, but now can we move on to proof and evidence?
As far as the demonstration itself, what do you plan to do? For the demo to carry weight it would have to involve the following:
The car would have to be inspected by someone not of your choosing to verify that there's no funny business going on. And frankly, I think this would have to include an inspection of the inside of your "cell" since you made a point of saying nobody is going open it. Basically the number one thing that needs to be verified is that the car is running on the fuel contained in the gas tank.
There should be no problem allowing someone else to drive the vehicle.
The "test" has to be more than a spin around the block and some measurement of a small amount of fuel used. This is where that "can't open the cell" thing comes into play.
Hypothetically, if we measure the exact amount of fuel in the tank take a 10 mile spin and come back and remeasure what's in the tank and find that we used 0.125 gallons of fuel, that doesn't mean the car got 80 mpg until I KNOW that the cell I wasn't allowed to look into didn't contain 1/4 gallon of gas that was also used up. Again, I'm not accusing you of doing this, but if I wanted to set up a fraudulent demo like that, it would take a car that's actually getting 35mpg and make it appear that it got 80mpg. That's the problem with a limited test. The further the test goes, the less good the results would look.
A more valid test would be to let the TV crew have the car, verify that everything is on the up and up, fill the car up, and let them drive it until at least half, but preferably almost all of the tank is gone, refill and calculate the mileage. And repeating the test would be even better.
Also, if the "device" can be switched on and off, a before and after demo should result in RADICALLY different results if what you claim is true.
There also can be no excuses why the demo didn't work. You've told us now that this HAS worked for 7 months, so there's no reason it should stop working just because someone wants to actually verify your results, right??
1. The results will be fabricated and/or observers fooled by trickery. (secret fuel tanks, corrupted mathematics).
2. The test will fail but excuses will be given
3. No scientific testing will occur, no scientific standards will be implemented and the results will pop out of nowhere.
4. Someone will actually get 80 mpg, and the test, having defied all the laws of science, will be declared a miracle and the sick will be brought there to be healed.
It's my opinion that NO hydrogen, even the piddling amounts generated by this primitive electrolysis, will even REACH the engine. It will just sit in the tube and eventually leak out through the hose.
this is why, by the way, you will get NO increase or decrease in engine idle when you flip the switch for the electrolysis device.
Answer THAT if you can please. Why don't you get an increase in idle speed?
Why, when flipping the switch on at 60 mph, you don't jump to 84 MPH, which would be a 40% increase in power.
Also, check out the dot's "guidlines for use of hydrogen fuel in commercial vehicles" .The on board generators are mentioned for diesel engines.
If I thought an idea had any merit whatsoever, I'd invest some time in it, but I've seen and heard enough about HHO generators. The only other thing I'd like to see on the subject is when the "inventor" gets sentenced for fraud.
And to the poor souls who end up manipulating their engine management systems and ruining their warranties, don't say I didn't say "I told you so".
I would however go to a demonstration of the BMW hydrogen car, because I know it works, as the system it uses is scientifically sound and the math and the chemistry work as well. Here we have a pressurized hydrogen system and an engine specially built to burn it, and modest claims for gas mileage and range.
My idea has more merit than any other being presented here methinks.
I think you can even see this happening among the people who fell for it---once they realized that the idea was based on totally false premises, they started devising other ways of manipulating their cars to get some kind of boost in fuel mileage---sort of backyard experimentation.
This seems harmless enough for a lawn mower or 1972 VW van with rusty bumpers, but it's an absolutely reckless thing to do on a new car.
I can only imagine the havoc that this "inventor" and his sub-inventors will create among the innocents who lean out their fuel mixtures and set their engine timing to dangerous levels so they can break the EPA estimates while sending the emissions needle through the roof.
You know things are bad when "believers" will dismiss the comments from an MIT professor and hang on the every word of a convicted drug dealer.
That to me is kinda sad.
End of story. Sorry.
Well keep in touch and if you ever do find a credible test of an HHO device, please post it.
You remember that video of the lawn mower running? Did you see the enormous size of the electrolysis unit powering it? No way that thing is going to fit under a hood.
And did you notice how the mower was barely idling, even though it was a tiny 1- cylinder engine?
That tells you everything you need to know about the impossibility of running an automobile engine with these underhood HHO devices.
So really the video only proves the point of the detractors by visually testifying as to how much hydrogen you'd need to run a car engine, and the size/capacity of the electrolysis unit.
Obviously, it would take way more energy to power a big electrolysis unit than could possibly be generated back by hydrogen.
Okay, now pay attention this time..... :shades:
Okay----the DOT is talking about HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS.
(repeat----hydrogen fuel cells)
This system uses compressed or liquid hydrogen (not water, okay? Uncombined hydrogen and oxygen) that is fed into the fuel cell and combined. This is exactly the opposite of your mayonnaise jars.
These juel cells are also STACKED (there are many of them since you need a lot of power to run a car).
The fuel cells in turn produce ELECTRICITY to drive a motor.
This system is about 100 light years ahead of simple primitive electrolysis, which attempt to break out a feeble amount of hydrogen from its chemical bonding with water.
You sound like you may need to go back to revisit science class, because you appear to be all mixed up here in your understanding of technology.
Once again---in a fuel cell, electricity is PRODUCED to drive an electric motor
Here---here's a helpful paragraph that you may wish to memorize:
"Fuel cells that use hydrogen can be thought of as devices that do the reverse of the well known experiment where passing an electric current through water splits it up into hydrogen and oxygen. In the fuel cell hydrogen and oxygen are joined together to produce water and electricty. "
Hey, here's a whole new pile of "sources" for you. I bet it says in every chemistry book that there's hydrogen in water and it can be cracked out of the water using electricity.
WOW... PROOF FROM DISTINGUISHED PROFESSORS THAT HHO WORKS.
That's EXACTLY the logic you're using here. Given the choice, you decided that this was the better way to respond than to start to show us more about the car you say you have that gets 80mpg. Funny choice to not back up what you say with results instead of obfuscation.
I did what you said bunnell. I tried to build something to see if it would work for myself. What I tried to build was a case that HHO might somehow work. I wasn't armed with vague, tangential sources that really have nothing to do with anything. I was armed with someone who said they ACTUALLY did it, that had a car they said has been getting 80mpg for 7 months.
But instead of being able to build my case, it fell apart because aside from the claim of 80mpg, I wasn't able to find any more proof. I TRIED to get more hard facts, asked repeatedly in fact. But none were forthcoming.
The ONLY conclusion is that HHO is scam. I'd say I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you'd probably only tell me that your bubble can't burst and that there's half a sentence on page 27 of an FAA report on hot air ballooing that would be interesting to read if I want to know why.
That's why HHO generators don't "work". They do produce hydrogen, but a) not enough to set a gnat on fire, and b) it costs you more to run the alternator than the "energy" you put back into the engine.
What's not clear about this for you?
I think the water was meant to cool the intake air from the supercharger to the engine. Liquid to air direct injection intercooling does provide a substantial power increase in boosted (turbo,supercharger) engines.
Maybe the hho gas helps improve the combustion chamber mixture of gas and air and slow the combustion process effectively increasing the octane rating of the mixture prior to combustion.
I mean there is a little water evident in ethyl alcohol fuels and they burn cool and have a better octane rating,.only less energy density than gas. Maybe HHO and gasoline mix is the best of both worlds.
HHO simply cannot work.
Yes, water injection works, but it's messy and tricky to regulate....now we use much more efficient intercoolers for turbocharged engines.
I think you were referring to B29 engines----and they caught fire A LOT.
Yes you're right, it was done to stay out of the detonation zone.
I think the last set of entrepreneurs they sent to prison in the 1940s were touting some non-workable water injection system right after WWII, when both cars and gasoline were expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)
(excerpt)
In internal combustion engines, water injection, also known as anti-detonant injection, is a method for cooling the combustion chambers of engines by adding water to the cylinder or incoming fuel-air mixture, allowing for greater compression ratios and largely eliminating the problem of engine knocking (detonation). This effectively increases the octane rating of the fuel, meaning that performance gains can be obtained when used in conjunction with a supercharger or turbocharger, altered spark ignition timing, and other modifications.
Fortunately for the HHO believers, there's ZERO chance of KABOOM happening... actually there's no chance of anything happening other than a lightening of their wallets. :shades:
..
... I am not completely familiar will all the operating procedures of ADI. My main knowledge is about the Curtiss-Wright R-3350. Two rows of nine cylinders, two speed centrifugal supercharger, and like the new Detroit Diesel, turbo-compounding (not turbo supercharging), with an incredible 3,000 horsepower (for the 1950's). This engine was considered by many to be the epitome of large piston engines when development was slowed by the jet-age. The ADI would be used with high speed supercharging and ADI for take-off. If there was an emergency at 5,000 foot and maybe they needed to be at 10,000 foot it's might be possible to go at this power for a short time; however if they were at twenty thousand foot and needed to gain another five thousand foot ADI might not be needed, as the boost possibility is hindered by the thin air at these altitudes. Also I don't know the exact density altitude specs that are in the operating parameters for the use of the high speed gearing, for the supercharger, @ various take-off conditions. It is my comprehension that ADI (in any application) is not used for continuous high altitude flight. Oh darn-it, there's always an exception. Maybe at the Reno air races, but these are conducted at less than ten thousand foot.
15% of people can never change there opinion no matter what.
70% can be influenced either way.
15% are staunch believers.
Personally I could care less what you ramble about, I know for a fact that hho works in internal combustion engines. So to argue with you would be senseless.
To prove to you that it works, would not be on the top of my to do list for sure!
That makes sense. Thank you for making it clear.
To prove to you that it works, would not be on the top of my to do list for sure!"
Great - so we will trust you, no proof required. Gotta love it :sick: :lemon:
The HHO device being marketed and/or installed on your vehicle is scientifically impossible and we've shown why with the math + chemistry---and the "believers" just brushed it aside, as if mathematics and chemistry don't matter at all.
But they do matter--they are how we separate fact from fiction in the modern world, and how human progress occurs.
If you gave someone $80 bucks for your HHO device, demand your money back---you've been robbed.
Posting statistics about "believers" in no way validates any point. Many times, there are things that 0% of the people should believe in.
Do you believe that inflatable camouflage pants with customizable ringtones are the best product for military personnel? Do you think that 70% of people can be influenced either way on this issue? Do you believe that 15% are staunch believers?
The 15 70 15 "theory" isn't so much a theory as a trite saying to convince people in the first 15% that they are wrong simply because they're in the minority. It is used to convince people that they should be more convinceable.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle