HHO kits - Do they really work?

clecker

Think of hho as an accelerant more than a fuel. Gasoline is a hydrocarbon fuel consisting of of numerous carbon and hydrogen elements.

Example

Hexane C6 H14 = fast burn
Dodecane C12 H26 = slower burn

The higher the carbon content the slower the burn.

Hydrogen molecules love carbon molecules so when you introduce more hydrogen molecules into a vaporized gasoline mixture it creates different elements (gas) that burns faster.

To utilize this new gas in an internal combustion engine timing is crucial this all happens in milliseconds and it doesn't take many many hydrogen molecules to change the molecular structure of gasoline.

Todays engines the piston outruns the flame the reason for that is the fuel burns to slow.

So with smaller amounts of carbon molecules in the elements during combustion the faster the burn which equals better efficency. So you can retard your timing because it is a faster burning fuel which in turn means the piston is not outrunning the flame.

That is why it is more of an accelerant than a fuel!

Mr_Shiftright

Nonsense....gasoline already has various HC molecules and it's not about to take any more from hydrogen gas. There's more hydrogen already in a gallon of gas than in a gallon of liquid hydrogen. How do you explain THAT?

Furthermore hydrogen is 2700 less energy dense than gasoline....the piddling few hydrogen molecules you generate from a bottle of water could barely light a match much less fuel an engine.

Here's a detailed description, with highly accurate testing, as to why HHO devices are a total scam:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

clecker

This is getting funny, Popular mechanics get real! Believe what you want, or is it that you can't understand!

We didn't get out of the stone age because we ran out of stones!

It seems, as I said before your mind is already made up which is a shame, so this will be my last post on this subject!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mr_Shiftright

Hard scientific evidence makes you uncomfortable does it? I understand.

Popular Mechanics made up my mind, that's true. They built the device, and built it beautifully, tested it accurately and thoroughly, and found it a scam. They got no extra MPG, they got zilch.

I couldn't ask for a better proof.

And your proof is?????

And saying you believe something, and ridiculing PM is not "proof".

If you had say a Scientific American test that showed 40% increase in mileage on their test vehicle after installing an HHO electrolysis unit using 12V current and a mason jar----I'd be impressed.

vcheng

Excerpt from http://www.scidev.net/en/science-communication/practical-guides/spotting-fraudul- - ent-claims-in-science.html

How can you get better at detecting fraud?

The following tips are intended to make journalists better equipped for judging the quality of scientific claims and detecting fraud:

Get to know a field of research

Attend scientific conferences or visit research institutes and meet scientists in your area of interest to find out their goals, methods and progress and also the type of criticisms they may have of each other's work.

Visit university libraries, or use Internet databases such as PubMed to find publications on a particular topic or by a certain author.

This will provide more insight into individual studies. Although primary research papers may be too full of jargon and technical detail to make much sense to a non-specialist, review articles, which explore ideas and hypotheses, may be easier to follow and present a more general view of a fields progress.

Check the quality of peer review

Ask the scientist whether their claim is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the answer is yes, do not assume this to be a mark of quality — different journals have different criteria and practices, and the quality of their peer review varies accordingly. It is therefore important, if possible, to find out the quality of the journal in question. To do so, consult scientists directly, or check with university librarians that the journal is held in high regard.

High quality journals tend to be more widely read and more frequently cited in academic papers. Journalists may also wish to try the internet search engine Google Scholar, a free resource that rates results according to the number of times a paper is cited by others, and hence indicates relative importance in the scientific community.

If you are uncertain about the journal's quality, try to find out the limitations of the study. Was it too preliminary, or too small a sample size to be accepted in a higher quality journal? An honest scientist will readily admit to the weakness of a study, and the need for further research — a less scrupulous one may instead exaggerate the importance and significance of the results, and deny that any data are lacking.

If you discover that a study has been refused publication, find out why. It may be honest work, but poorly designed, or insufficient in some way.

Alternatively, it may simply have been submitted to an inappropriate journal — good science, but too narrow in scope for a broad-interest journal such as Nature or Science, for example. Then again, the authors may have refused to redesign or expand their study, for fear that their assertions will be proved wrong.

Question the numbers

Are the numbers involved in a study appropriate and sufficient for the kind of investigation involved? Clinical trials, for example, proceed through three recognised phases from initial safety trials of just a handful of individuals to larger trials of effectiveness involving hundreds and then thousands of people. This will reveal whether or not a result has arisen by chance (its statistical significance), enabling conclusions to be drawn with greater certainty. Even if the statistics appear to back the claim, they are still worth checking with an independent expert, as mistakes can and do occur, including in the top journals.

Be critical if the claim is made in a public statement.

A journalist hearing an unpublished claim during an interview, press conference or seminar, should dig deeper to investigate how the study has been conducted. Ask the following questions (which can also be applied to a published study):

How credible is the scientist among his/her scientific peers? Asking other scientists directly can be a quick indication. Otherwise, checking through an Internet database such as PubMed may indicate how often others cite the person's work;

Is the scientist based at a recognised scientific institution?

How is the study funded? A publicly funded study, for example, has had its protocol scrutinised by experts in order to compete against others for funding; and

Is the author likely to profit from the sale of products relating to the work? Although many journals require authors to declare any competing financial interests, some scientists fail to do so.

Find experts for advice and comment

Finding an independent expert to comment is the most reliable way to judge the validity of a study. When interviewing a scientist, ask them for the contact details of other scientists doing similar work. Alternatively, identify a relevant expert by checking the editorial board of a journal – as long as it is a reputable one.

Use the PubMed database to see who has published on the topic. Or go through the list of speakers at a relevant conference, which you may find advertised in a journal, or on the website of a scientific society. Local universities, research centres, funding agencies or government departments may also provide a list of academics willing to talk to the media.

Check for ethical and regulatory approval

If the study is a clinical trial, and claims to provide evidence for a treatment, vaccine or cure for a disease, check that details concerning the drug or vaccine composition, and any toxic side effects, are publicly available. Make sure that the investigators are officially registered medical practitioners and that the trial or product has both ethical and regulatory approval — either for experimentation or for sale.

There are now public databases, such as the US National Institutes of Health service, ClinicalTrials.gov, where clinical trials may be registered and which all top quality journals now insist should be referred to in published papers.

Be sure of the facts

Journalists must be certain of their evidence, as an accusation of fraud could leave someone's career in ruins. They should check their facts with more than one source, and also anticipate that they may have difficulty in persuading some researchers to speak out against a colleague. An accused scientist may threaten to sue a journalist or their paper for libel, in which case it may be wise to seek the advice of a lawyer before publication.

In conclusion, it's worth remembering that most science is honest, and fraud is difficult to detect. In following the steps above, however, a journalist can certainly enhance their skills and reputation for reporting accurate and good quality scientific studies, and maybe catch a fraudster in the act.

Mr_Shiftright

Good science even has a double-check.....there are peer reviews that actually review every study published in a scientific journal (even after the journal has vetted the study). In other words, these types of reviews assess how well the studies were conducted and look for problems in them.

For instance:

1. Where was the study published? Is this a credible source?

2. How large was the study group?

3. Was a double-blind or tripe blind technique used?

4. Has anyone been able to replicate these results?

The minute HHO generators are subjected to rigorous scientific analysis, they burst into flame like hydrogen :P

PF_Flyer

HHO can't work. That's a scientific fact. All the wishing and doubletalk in the world can't change that.

HHO proponents have been asked REPEATEDLY for MONTHS for proof of what they claim. Absolutely none has been offered. All we get are insinuations that the people who know HHO doesn't work are somehow mistaken.

Well we're not. Those making the claims have had their chance to sell us on this idea and continually refuse to do so.

It's a scam, plain and simple.

By all means, keep the obfuscations coming. You're doing more to show what a scam this is than I ever could have done :shades:

gault

PF- First i will say that i am on the fence in regards to if this technology can really be put to use in cars or anything for that matter, but i think to say that it is a scientific fact that this will not work for us in the future is ridiculous. You said that no one will step up and prove that these devices work on cars, but no one from the other side has proven that it does not.

For the person that posted the Popular Mechanics post- that guy did not build his unit and did not test it thoroughly. He gave very vague almost no details of his testing of the unit as mentioned in reply post 196 on the link below that you added.

As i mentioned i am not for or against this tech., but for me (or anyone for that matter) to say that it is not possible with out testing it yourself is ridiculous. No one said that you had to go out and spend in the thousands of dollars to disprove this your self. I would be inclined to ask someone to disprove this by building one of these (give very specific details of testing(not like the PMs guy)) to prove to everyone that these on demand systems do not work. I would like to see those results.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19

Mr_Shiftright

It's not ridiculous to say it won't work. The HHO system, with the battery powered electrolysis and the mason jar, scientifically cannot work as claimed. It is impossible to power a car that way.

No one is saying hydrogen technology is impossible. BMW has already built a hydrogen car. We know THAT works, but we also know WHY that works, because the chemistry and physics of the BMW car make perfect sense.

As for PM, what they did is certainly a lot more credible that the opposing "proof", which is "my brother's nephew gets 80 mpg". PM wasn't "vague" at all. What are you reading? Nothing "vague" about computer monitoring of the fuel injectors. No, they didn't built it---they had one of the BEST fabricators in America build it. Did you see the unit? It's BEAUTIFUL. Who could build one better? Ralph in his backyard shed? Don't think so.

HHO generators (the battery/mason jar types) are a scam to sucker people out of their money IMO, that's all they are.

texases

I know it's kicking a dead horse, but this is one dead horse that deserves to be kicked, and HARD. The news show Dateline teamed up with Popular Mechanics to test the HHO scam. They did it the right way: tested their vehicle (an Accord) at an EPA-certified lab, had the scammer install Dennis Lee's HAFC HHO apparatus (where he claimed the vehicle now go 96 MPG!!!), then retested it at the EPA, Result? Zero, nada, zilch change in mileage or emissions. One can ask for no more proof. Done deal. Scam, and a criminal one at that. :sick: :lemon: :sick: :lemon:

See more here: Final nail in the HHO coffin

Mr_Shiftright

I'm awaiting the 'refutation" on this one.

Conspiracy with oil companies

Didn't "do it right".

"Out to get him"

Paid off by Detroit

EPA corrupt

I really liked the part where the HHO generator actually COSTS you gas to run it! PEFECT comeuppance.

texases

Yeah, let's see what they say...but at least the "they didn't do it right" claim is nonsense, since it was an HAFC vendor that did the installation.

Mr_Shiftright

Unless of course they purposely sabotaged it after he installed it. These commie perverts will stop at nothing to discredit the brave pioneers of HHO technology.

clecker

To me it was a story they created. If they wanted a true test. Why not take the mechanic to there testing facility?
To many variables to make it credible. but believe what you want. If all they were doing were testing the hho system why would they go after Dennis Lee so much. There are hundreds of hho systems out there why not test more than one? One car with only their (credibility) to say it's true.

I think it created more skepticism, not everyone believes the media!

texases

Shifty, you, of course, were correct. There must be reason(s)...never mind the experts that did it, never mind the careful procedure, nevermind EVERYTHING. If it says HHO doesn't work, it must be WRONG.

PF_Flyer

Hopeless...

HHO is a SCAM

IT DOES NOT WORK

If you don't understand that by now, you're living in Area 51 in the 911 conspiracy theory dorm.

There are such things as FACTS and TRUTH. Ignoring them doesn't make what you believe true.

qbrozen

Ok, I'll try just to make it interesting...

Ain't Dateline the ones that staged Chevy truck blowing up by igniting a rag in the tank to "demonstrate" it was unsafe in a crash?

Or, if not, then they are just another news source that would be willing to do the same thing.

Edit: D'oh! I didn't see clecker's before I wrote this.

PF_Flyer

Let's not make it "interesting"

Physics has no agenda

qbrozen

oh, that's where you're wrong. Nobody is above the siren song of big oil ... not even your mighty physics!

PF_Flyer

"Big oil" has absolutely nothing to do with whether HHO works or not.

It doesn't. It's been demonstrated that it doesn't. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, has demonstrated that it does in a PROVEABLE, REPEATABLE fashion. Not even close.

So while we'll NEVER be rid of scams and those who would foist them on fools who believe them, I also know for a FACT, that nobody will ever show a working HHO kit because it's hogwash.

It doesn't even rise to the level of "pipe dream"

qbrozen

LOL! Are you really arguing with me?

clecker

I see your from PA. if I show you one that works will you believe?

PF_Flyer

OK... did I miss the irony or the sarcasm in your reference to "big oil"?

My apologies if you intended it other than the way it read. It's just getting VERY old listening to the HHO proponents trying to bolster their bogus (and that's what they are) claims.

I do believe I may have reached my "absolute nonsense tolerance" limit. :P

PF_Flyer

I'm done running around in this circle, so no, I really have no interest in being shown a car and listening to a claim that a quart of water under the hood is giving a 50% increase in mileage.

If you've actually done that, great. I'll be buying one as soon as you manufacture and sell these miraculous devices. If it's really as simple as all that, I shouldn't have long to wait.

But if you or anyone else wants to prove that this claptrap works, YOU are the ones that are going to have to step up and do it. If *I* had a working HHO kit, I would be going to anyone and everyone I could find trying to DEMONSTRATE and SELL it to a car manufacturer rather than asking people to simply believe it.

Even ignoring the impossibility of the idea working due to physics, there's no RATIONAL way to explain why this idea isn't on every car being manufactured right now if it indeed does work.

Think GM could use a 50% boost on the mileage of their vehicles right now? And if HHO proponents are sitting on this idea and not taking it to GM, I think there are a lot of other people besides me looking at the situation in Detroit who would want to know WHY.

But we already know why. GM isn't adding this technology to their cars because it doesn't work. If it did, they would. In a HEARTBEAT.

clecker

You remind me of an ostrich, there eyes are bigger than there brains, and when confronted hide there heads in a hole! So read with your eyes but there is no brain to put it in. Do you even know what a scan tool is? WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD!

qbrozen

I'll forgive ya this once, but with 12,004 posts, I'd think you'd know me by now. ;b

PF_Flyer

Every once in a while they tend to run together

Mr_Shiftright

You can send me the plans for your kit, and I'll build it and test it sure. But I'm not giving any scam artist $80 bucks. E-mail me if you want to send me detailed plans.

I have no agenda. I'd LOVE to get 96 mpg on my Subaru. I'll be your BIGGEST booster.

PF_Flyer

You're not gonna hold your breath waiting for those plans are ya Shifty?

Mr_Shiftright

No, because they want my $80 bucks obviously.

One would think that if one wanted good free publicity for one's product, one would give some away to media people---one would think---unless one would be worried that said product will register a big Goose Egg in pubic view.

I have a very good mechanical background and training. I can build anything you guys can send me.

If it works I'll be glad to pay you for it. If it doesn't, I'll be glad to send it back.

How much fairer can I be here?

wreckerman9

you guys need to get a room. 4 real,yea, and fill it with 02 and water. wanna save fuel? shut it off already, or COAST fer awhile. time will tell,just be patient,drink a glass of water,while ya wait. hho ho ho ,hhave a good day.