I think you have a balanced view on the subject of HHO. The biggest issue I have is the method of sales. When I see MLM it is like waving a red flag in my face. I don't care if it is Amway or toothpicks. MLMs are a scam. The pictures of a yacht out on the coast with some guy sipping a drink is the picture of the guy that started the scam. The reality is the 1000s of poor schmucks with a garage full of products that no one is willing to pay the price for. I know as I had to clean out my parents garage after they died. Old Shaklee products from the 1970s. A mineral product that actually killed my mother. Too much to list here. I see the myriad of ads for running your car on water. They are selling for $49.95 to over $1000. All making enormous claims. And even a few $5000 guarantees. How many have an address where you take the product back if it fails to operate? How many are guaranteeing your engine will not fail prematurely from these devices? One of the major suppliers of these HHO devices has done hard time for scamming people out of their hard earned money.
Legitimate products do not take long to end up in legitimate stores. Legitimate stores sell products that give legitimate results or your money back no questions asked. These devices have had legitimate entities test them and they are not being sold by legitimate dealers. That should give anyone a clue as to their value.
If they worked Honda would not be spending BILLIONS to make their hydrogen fuel cell vehicle affordable. They would just put a $50 device on an existing Honda Civic and you got an 80 MPG car that would outsell every car on the planet.
This has nothing to do with physics or rocket science. It is pure snake oil sales. And PT Barnum has to be sad he was born 100 years too early.
There you go again! There's no need to buy the snake oil. My point is that my stone mason cousin has improved his gas mileage by 20% using an incredibly crude set up -- a coffee can and an applesauce jar (oh and some tubing and alligator clips and some other stuff for the nitpickers). Total cost was under $30. As an experiment, the concept works. I've seen it work. It'll probably fall apart the first time he hits a pothole. But who cares? I know he did it, and I know I can do it (and probably refine it), and thousands of people are doing it every day. The internet is full of success stories by people who stand to gain nothing by building their own (except their own personal savings at the gas pump!)
Of course Honda and other companies want THEIR bloated concepts to work instead. And they're glad to see the coffee can concepts scoffed at. Big business has already spent billions and have a huge infrastructure to support. No one is going to make any money on a coffee can and an applesauce jar.
Ask yourself this question. What would a device that actually and verifiably increases your gas mileage be worth to you? What would you pay for it? $5, $10? Maybe a number approaching 10% of your annual cost of fuel would be your limit?
You wouldn't buy a $30 audio system for your car because you'd know it was garbage. Why would someone practically (but not quite) be giving away improved gas mileage for your car?
pf -- what does that question have to do with the price of rice in China? There's basically nothing to market here. I doubt the concept is even patentable. The snake oilers will of course package it and sell it for whatever they can get. But that doesn't matter. The cheap, crude HHO hybrid system works. I've seen it work. Thousands of people have seen similar versions of the concept work. And success stories are all over the internet. I mean success stories from resourceful, innovative people -- not con artists or big companies. Most of them are not even selling anything. You can go on youtube and find whole video series on how to build these things. There will never be much money in selling the concept. It's too easy. And because you're dealing with explosive gases the perceived liabilities for selling actual working devices are probably huge. But thanks to the internet you can watch people do all sorts of amazing things that big companies and the gubmint would rather you not know about. There's very little incentive to develop or "approve" something that can't be marketed or taxed.
so realbasic, I'm curious to know what was the outcome of the cousin's experiment. Did he run his car with this thing in it for any lenght of time? did he see any improvement in mpg? I don't doubt that it can work, but what sort of improved mpg can you get? If the increase is small then that explains in part why working kits aren't being sold and installed on a large scale. My mechanic charges 85 bucks an hour and I would guess to install one properly and tune and adjust the engine to optimize benefits would take4 to 8 hours.
Of course Honda and other companies want THEIR bloated concepts to work instead
You really need to read what you are saying. It makes NO sense at all. If someone can take a coffee can and applesauce jar and revolutionize the automobile industry. They could make $$BILLIONS of dollars. They would not have to create a Ponzi scheme to sell it to gullible people.
When it becomes mainstream and I see people driving Sequoias like mine getting 40 MPG I will jump on the bandwagon.
Fine. Wait until it becomes mainstream. Like I explain above, there's basically nothing to market here. Essentially all you're doing is running an electrical current through water. There are a million ways to do it. You can make it fancy or non-fancy. I cite the coffee can/applesauce jar to make that point. I have a Honda Pilot that I'd like to boost to 40 mpg. Would I hook a coffee can up to it? Probably not. I'll probably wait, too.
And to answer pf flyer, I saw my cousin over the weekend and we just laughed and laughed about how simple it is. He hooked his system up to a 20-year-old Chevy work truck a few weeks ago. He had been averaging about 10 miles a gallon. Now he's getting 12. That's 20% better. He's a stone mason. He doesn't own a lab coat. So what? The concept works.
woo hoo! Hulllabaloo! Take it easy you guys! argueing against these things on the basis of them not being produced by major manufactureres is getting old. There could be many reasons why auto manufacturers don't go with it. I have no doubt you can achieve better mileage and better emissions. What I want to know is how can I get some 'significant" increase in mpg?
First I have to agree with the fact that every time the fuel prices goes up; too many of these “fuel thieves” popup everywhere. And the reason they are some naïve people that lack common sense fall for these false claims. One thing I have to disagree with you on is the following statement : Legitimate products do not take long to end up in legitimate stores. Legitimate stores sell products that give legitimate results or your money back no questions asked. These devices have had legitimate entities test them and they are not being sold by legitimate dealers. Right now they are a lot of store that sell the so called the “TURBONATOR” in Advance Auto Parts store, in PEP BOYS,,,,,so you can see they are not obstructed from selling a product that does not work. I suggest to everyone not to spend a dime on anything that claim extra power, and fuel efficiency, whether from the store or from the WEB. Companies are going almost bankrupt like Chrysler, Ford, and GM; and if they know that some $40 gadget is going to improve mileage for their vehicles they would have rushed in developing it and testing it, and fitting there vehicles with it, which will help their sells. Do not waist your time, in any gadget, you want good fuel mileage wait for the hybrid market until it get crowded, and buy a vehicle that fit your needs.
If you want to say OIL COMPANIES would want to shelve this technology, fine. If all the cars suddenly got 20% (or even 2%) better mileage, that would effect their sales.
But to say car companies are resistent borders on insane. Toyota puts out a hybrid that costs them $5-10,000 more than a regular car and they can't sell enough of them. But they wouldn't want to spend less than $100 to get similar results? Come on! That would single handedly get Ford into the black again if they could build cars with 20% better mpg than their competitors for the same cost.
So it begs the question: WHY?
Is it because the technology does not work? Is it because it does work but there is some other downside (durability, liability)?
Those are valid questions. If it worked with no downside, why haven't the car companies jumped on it?
NOTE WELL: Nowhere in this post or any other have I said it doesn't work. I have just brought up questions that should not be difficult to answer. Because they don't get answered, it is easy to think this is snake oil or that there is some other problem with it.
On to another point. I have seen posts in other forums from people established in those forums (I don't personally know them) and they have posted promising results. BUT, it is generally of the nature "I was getting X and now I get Y." The problem, that is not a valid test. (Nor does it answer the questions about long term effects). If somebody not connected to the sales of this could just run the same course under the same (or even similar) condition, i.e. temp/wind/tire pressure, I would be happy with that. Say what you want about Popular Mechanics, that is about as close as I have seen and that doesn't look promising. Magazine tests are rarely perfect, but I don't think it is fair to just dismiss it.
So it begs the question: WHY doesn't Toyota do HHO hybrids?
Answer: Product pipeline. The next generation Prius was probably on the Toyota drawing board five years ago. You think they're going to instantly pull the plug (so to speak...) on all that investment? Toyota is a giant conglomerate. Layers of bureaucracy. Do you think the 500 designers who probably work on current hybrid technology are suddenly going to stand down when some guy shows them a HHO youtube video and says "why aren't we doing this?" They'd be as skeptical as you and demand the job security of years of research. Toyota will do HHO -- ten years from now. But the fact is, a lot of people are doing it now!
Yes WHY? I agree to some degree with lilevis. I don't think the tech does not work. I wonder how well though. Like I said before, 'significant' increasein mpg is different than 1 r 2 extra mpg. I think more important than that is his 2nd question ....what about durability and liability? There is an efect associated w/hydrogen called 'embrittlement". Some components become brittle w/ contact with hydrogen. I'm sure there are other potntial problems possibly too many to make it wothwhile for car makers to consider using. However, To install such a device on an older rig yourself might bea good idea. I don't think I would try it on my newest car....yet
From that website: "Emission systems intentionally designed by the auto manufactures to make sure you get absolutely no better fuel economy than they programmed the system to accept and we have an abundance of evidence to back that statement up!" Yet no evidence.
"We also use six very powerful magnets that ionize the gasoline to produce smaller molecules and separate their compounds into simple elements producing a cleaner more efficient burn." Very powerful indeed to turn a compound into its elements. I guess that means there is straight Carbon going into the cylinders. The good news is, there would also be straight Hydrogen derived from the gasoline - so why even use water and electricity when magnets can give you all the Hydrogen you need? And i always thought magnets just work on Ferrous metals . . .
Even if there are valid points anywhere on that website, how can I trust these "scientists" when they don't seem to know high school level chemistry. That is a typical HHO website that is all show and no substance.
Cars get some form of redesign almost every year. They frequently make changes even mid-year for safety reasons. Adding $30 worth of parts for 20% better mileage would not constitute a radical design change and would be done immediately if there were no downside. Apparently from another posting this has been around since 1975. That's quite a product pipeline!
If 500 commercially employed scientists saw a technology that, if they produced it for their employer, would give them job security and advancement, I think about 500 scientists would be falling over themselves trying to use the idea for their own products. See Microsoft . . . .
Yikes Paulie! looks to me like there are 5 seperate devices in your system a hydr/generator a covalizer? (an addative to put in your tank?) an ionizer (this also is old tech.) a computer to adjust for the cars onboard system and a pre catalytic converter. My question to you is: how much for all that stuff and the mechanics time to install
and 2nd; how much fuel savings could I expect from JUST the hyro generator?
There's basically nothing to market here. I doubt the concept is even patentable. The snake oilers will of course package it and sell it for whatever they can get. But that doesn't matter. The cheap, crude HHO hybrid system works. I've seen it work.
If there's nothing to market, then it has no value. None. Because in a world where someone found a way to sell a pet rock, a device that gives a significant improvement in gas mileage would certainly be marketable.
I recall the Tornado air flow claims of 24% improvement in mileage a few years ago. Any testing I've seen has pretty much debunked that device, but just to show you that there's not much new under the sun, patent number 1115699 was issued in Nov 1914 for an "AUXILIARY MIXER FOR INTERNAL-COMBUSTION ENGINES" which sure looks like it's from the same family as the Tornado, and it claims that the invention will provide the "means for thoroughly intermingling, commingling, and uniting the elements of the explosive mixture after it leaves the carbureter and before it enters the cylinder of the motor." As the patent states, this is needed because a carbureter might function just fine under ideal conditions, but under unusual loads, or sudden acceleration, or adverse atmospheric conditions the mixture might not be commingled or united with the resultant misfire or flooding of the cylinders with unvolitalized hydrocarbons.
And we all know how painful that can be.
Point is that there are already mulitple patents for the idea of injecting hydrogen into the air-fuel mixture of an internal combustion engine including one for a combustion process with hydrogen injection that was issued to Daimler-Benz in 1976.
You would think that Mercedes would have been touting the system and how it gives their cars better mileage than their competitor's vehicles by now.
So I guess I have to take back the orignal premise that I started this post with. I'm not confused at all.
So the basic concept of running a current through water and sending the hydrogen to an engine hasn't been property marketed or commercially applied yet. SO WHAT? I found out about it on Friday night on a rude and crude installation and was blown away by how simple it is. Then I went on the internet and used my own discernment to see through the snake oil and get down to the basic integrity of the HHO/gasoline hybrid concept. Other people are finding out about the HHO/gasoline hybrid concept right now by reading this and other forums. All I can tell them is watch an HHO/gasoline hybrid system work. Come to your own conclusions. It is unbelievable simple, and there's no need to let the "experts" baffle you with bull about thermodynamics unvolitalized hydrocarbons and dynamometric hooey. The "experts" have always stood in the way of true creativity and great ideas. Science is great, but not when it's used to obstruct simple elegance.
The grand and glorious physics professor and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Samuel Pierpont Langley splashed into the Potomac with his version of a flying machine. Orville and Wilbur were bicycle mechanics who never went to college. I don't even have to use their last name to make my point!
Hydrogen has a lot of energy, and it’s light gas that ignite very quickly. It could make for a good fuel to generate energy, NASA use hydrogen to propel their rocket to space. But the fact that hydrogen high combustible gas and can explode in contact with O2, Car manufacturer is not considering it as an alternative energy, except Honda using it packaged in hydrogen car to charge Fuel cells. This safety factor alone inhibits companies from using Hydrogen in the car engine, if cars start to burn from explosion, law suite will poor on the company who developed the car like hells. Again, safety is major concern for any development otherwise we could consider using Uranium to fuel our cars for almost a year before refueling next time. This is why companies are not idiot, they weight the advantages and the risks of any solution to the fuel economy problem.
So you are saying again that because no big car co. has marketed it that it can't be real? C'mon you keep coming back to that as the evidence. but still don't you think there must be something to it if d/benz got a patent on it?Why patent something if ther's no use for it? maybe it wasn't worth developing because the benfits weren't big enough. Can you concede that it is possible to get SOME more mpg from mixing hydogen and oxygen with gasoline?
I agree that the danger factor and liability are most likely an important element in the decision to not develope such a device in new cars.Like I said a few days ago: people are afraid of hydrogen.
So the basic concept of running a current through water and sending the hydrogen to an engine hasn't been property marketed or commercially applied yet. SO WHAT? I found out about it on Friday night on a rude and crude installation and was blown away by how simple it is. Then I went on the internet and used my own discernment to see through the snake oil and get down to the basic integrity of the HHO/gasoline hybrid concept. Other people are finding out about the HHO/gasoline hybrid concept right now by reading this and other forums. All I can tell them is watch an HHO/gasoline hybrid system work. Come to your own conclusions. It is unbelievable simple, and there's no need to let the "experts" baffle you with bull about thermodynamics unvolitalized hydrocarbons and dynamometric hooey. The "experts" have always stood in the way of true creativity and great ideas. Science is great, but not when it's used to obstruct simple elegance.
The grand and glorious physics professor and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Samuel Pierpont Langley splashed into the Potomac with his version of a flying machine. Orville and Wilbur were bicycle mechanics who never went to college. I don't even have to use their last name to make my point!
What I said was the idea is not new, I pointed out a car company that was obviously looking at it over 30 years ago, and saying that nobody has found it worthwhile to market in all that time. That says a lot about the real world practicality of the idea.
There are plenty of patents for inventions that really don't work or are not practical to implement for whatever reason. Right now I'd have to say HHO kits fall into that category. NOBODY is sitting on this idea because it would hurt their business.
There's a patent out there that was issued in the 80's for the design of an auto body that improves mileage by ducting the air in front of the car through the body and out the back. The idea being that instead of the air pushing on the front of the car, you give it a path to flow thorugh and thereby reduce the drag on the car. Decreased drag does lead to increased mileage. Do you see any vehicles anywhere using a system like this? No. Whether it's because they would be to expensive to make, or impractical to incorporate into the design of a car doesn't really matter. If it was a great idea, someone would have picked up on the opportunity to make some real money on it. HHO kits haven't been commercially marketed or applied yet because nobody has found it worthwhile to do so. And it sure sounds like people are looking to me.
Again, if it turns out that somehow the laws of physics change, or better yet, some as yet undiscovered process comes up that makes it actually work in a provable, repeatable manner that provides a signifigant benefit, I'm right there with you.
But I'm pretty sure there's more evidence and fact on the side of this being an elaborate MLM scheme than there is of it actually working. How many times have people here said, "I know it works, I've seen it" without one shred of evidence other than their claim? No websites to point to documenting trials or testing by independent labs to bolster their result. I really don't care how times someone says "the internet is full of claims of success". The internet is full of a lot of stuff that people believe and think they have "evidence" for. Chem trails, the moon landing was faked, Elvis sightings, eat all you want and lose weight. If you can think of it, more than one someone is out there trying to sell it to you.
Is it possible that there is SOME gain in mileage from just putting hydrogen into the mix? My gut and reports like that from Popular Mechanics is telling me no. Greater than zero? Maybe. Greater than a fraction of a percent? Unlikely.
Wanting to see proof of something beyond a wild claim is prudent. Changing the target from "signifigant" to "some" gain really only makes me even more suspicious about the claims.
I want better mileage, you want it, we ALL want it. That's a consumer need. Successful companies fill needs with products that work and the consumer WILL buy them.
The danger for us consumers is that we may want something bad enough that we'll part with our hard-earned cash on the promise that something fills that need.
Well pf I wasn't trying to change the target as you put it. I was just trying to determine whether or not you think they 1 don't work at 2 might work in a limited fashion or 3 don't produce any increase whatsoever. I'll remind you I am one of those who said I saw a homemade one installed and operating ina '85 chevy luv p/u truck. It was very crude. And I can't verify the owners claim of 11 more mpg. But the guy is driving around with it and there must be some reason. I can tell you he wasn't selling anything. I came here to hear of some research and test results. but for the most part i don't mind listening to the "I saw one and it works" people. I are one
Key word is "homemade." Pf flyer keeps coming back to the idea of "if it was real, companies would sell them and people would buy them." Like Brian76, I was blown away by the simplicity of a homemade one. The first personal computers were homemade ones. The first airplane was a homemade one. And on and on. Just about everything you need to build a crude HHO system can be found in your recycling bin and Home Depot for under $30. Buy some extra stuff on ebay and you could have a better one. And eventually some corporate cubicle dweller will figure out that they can build a safe one without a bunch of corporate liiability. And they'll probably sell them for under $50. But they exist now and they work.
OK, you've seen it on a car but can't verify the mileage claims of the owner. What kind of proof is that? The fact that he has something attached to his car and is driving it around shows me what eactly? I'd really like to understand what it is that makes anyone think these claims have any merit at all with "evidence" like that.
So what you're actually saying is you saw one and someone told you it's working. I play too much poker to be that trusting.
Being "homemade" certainly doesn't disqualify anything from being effective. But when the backyard tinkerer comes up with something terrific, it rarely stays in the backyard for long.
Since you say it was an '85 Chevy pickup it must be an S-10 since that replaced the Luv in 1982, but you'll get my point here. The EPA mileage estimates for the 1985 S-10 are 21 city/27 highway for the 2.0 liter with 4 speed manual. Any other configuration on the truck other than the diesel versions has worse numbers.
An 11 mpg mileage increase is simply a ridiculous claim to take at face value with no verification when faced with the reality of what the truck is rated at for mileage. If that pickup owner isn't selling anything it's because he doesn't have anything to sell. If he actually was getting a 40-50% mileage increase on his pickup, I know a couple of people who would want to tie up the rights to whatever it is he's done and wouldn't be shy about making the millions that would come with a product that could do that.
Have you done this simple thing to your car?
And don't kid yourself. If a product comes out that can, in fact, increase gas mileage by even 10% there's no way that $50 is going to be close to what you're going to have to pay for it. We've laid out over $2500 for gas year to date in our household. The thing would be worth $200 to me right now and the frenzy over such a device would be staggering. People paid $5000 over MSRP because they had to have a PT Cruiser and had to have it NOW. A company would be hard pressed to keep up with demand for a true gas saving device at this moment in time.
"Since you say it was an '85 Chevy pickup it must be an S-10 since that replaced the Luv in 1982, but you'll get my point here. The EPA mileage estimates for the 1985 S-10 are 21 city/27 highway for the 2.0 liter with 4 speed manual. Any other configuration on the truck other than the diesel versions has worse numbers. "
I had assumed it was a Sierra full sized pick up by Chevy.
Gotcha....I am sure it would be easy enough to get you local TV station to ride along with your cousin and video a few tank fulls, and then measure the results right? You could even post the link..
short of borrowing the guys truck I don't know how i could verify the mileage. Yes his claim was that he was getting 20 or 21mpg before and now he gets 31. I may have been wrong on the year of the truck. it was a LUV. I know it was carburated not injected. the thing is he wasn't trying to sell me on it. I heard about him and looked him up.talked to him for quite a while and looked over the rig and what he had done to it. The fact that he is driving around in it doesn't prove the mileage but if he wasn't getting anything from it why keep using it? No I haven't done this simple thing to my car. You imply that if it were simple I would have already done it. Also ,I might ask, would it make a bit of difference to you if I had? My story would be no more credible than anyone elses here. For me ,although the device is very simple technology, it's not so simple to build and install. I plan to try it on my89 jeep comanche. However it is injected which is one of the variables I'm concerned with. That's why I'm here to find out all I can about this idea before i go any farther. I don't have the time to tinker with any such thing w/out having a pretty good plan of attack. Besides, I'd have to get off my duff and stop posting to forums to actually build one and try it. sounds like work! Anyway pf, I would have to say that your theory that it can't be true because someone would be making millions is really no better evidence. I've said it before, not everyone out there is a scammer. so something is going on worth looking into. I'd like to think this forum is open to anyone's ideas w/out so much scoffing as to drive honest folks away.
Yeah, I'll mention that to him. He's a stone mason so he can just take off work and drive up to the TV station in his 20-year-old work truck. A gorgeous science reporter and camera crew will magically run outside, climb into his truck and ride around with him for a few tankfuls. That does sound easy enough!
Or, maybe you can just go to youtube and type HHO in the search box. About 11.500 videos show up. That might be easier. I don't know.
ok thats it, www.piccamerica.com all the information you will ever need on HHO is here
This is just another scam of Jeff Otto aka Dennis lee. This guy did hard prison time for selling a device that is supposed to give free electricity. He sells mineral water and foot massagers. Want to know how to beat the IRS out of taxes, he has the info.
You all go ahead and send him $1100 for the HAFC, then find out you need another device designed by a guy named Paul Pantone that is locked up in an asylum. So you cannot return this device as you are waiting on another piece to the puzzle that is in short supply. Or does it even exist?
He also claims to be some sort of religious leader. Here are a few of his enterprises.
could this be paulie? from yesterday? he didn't get back to the forum to answer my questions about his 5 mpg boosting devices. anyhow, thanks gagrice for some fun stuff to check out.
Discussion like this are always welcome at our weekly chats. So if you want to talk about HHO kits and hang out and meet some of your fellow CarSpace members, stop on by tonight!
Tuesday means Mazda chat night! Mazda ownership is not a requirement! Just bring yourself and your love of cars and the desire to discuss anything and everything automotive and you're good to go!
The chat opens at 8:45 pm ET and runs until 10 pm ET. I hope you're able to join us tonight to meet and greet with your fellow CarSpace members! See you there!
And therein lies the problem . . .How can anybody take these devices seriously seriously when their biggest proponents are snake oil salesmen?
If people don't trust a magazine review, how about a grad student thesis? Heck, I'd even like to see a local vocational class do a little practical exercise on these things.
So many of these people claim to have "invented" or "designed" these world saving solutions. How can they have invented or designed anything if they can't even explain how or why it works.
If it improves the combustion of gasoline - terrific. I can buy that. Just please, PLEASE, explain to me how it does it. What is happening to make it burn more efficiently? These people would not have decided one day to start throwing Hydrogen and Oxygen gas down their carbs unless they had some basis to do so. Well, what was that basis?
I don't have a problem if a shadetree mechanic heard about these and said "what the heck, I'll try it. Not sure why it works but I'll try." And then did so and got improved mileage. great - I don't expect that person to know anything more than they got improved mileage (if it really happened). But I do expect all these "inventors" to "engineers" to know why it works (if it even does).
Yet none of them can say. They just throw out scientific terms but clearly have no science aptitude and it is clear to the educated eye. In other words, they are BS'ing, so i ignore them.
To all those who have actually made one of these - I hope you are seeing improvements and i am not saying in any way you're wrong. but please understand many of us want to know the reason why.
nicely put lilelvis. The only thing I've had explained to me is that because of the temp. and/or speed which hydogen burns, the gasoline is more completely burned. That was from a diesel mechanic w/ one in his truck as explained to a building contractor (me). I obviously don't know much more about it than the shadetree mechanic example you provided. Although I can and have torn down a few engines and rebuilt them. I suspect that the oxygen derived from the electrolosis is also a factor. But I can see I'll still have to build one myself to satify my curiosity. By the way, thanks to all of you for easing off on the cynical remarks to those of us trying to be straightforward about our curiosity.
I don't have a problem if a shadetree mechanic heard about these and said "what the heck, I'll try it. Not sure why it works but I'll try." And then did so and got improved mileage. great - I don't expect that person to know anything more than they got improved mileage (if it really happened). But I do expect all these "inventors" to "engineers" to know why it works (if it even does).
Yet none of them can say. They just throw out scientific terms but clearly have no science aptitude and it is clear to the educated eye. In other words, they are BS'ing, so i ignore them.
This is what gets me. Take for example the link from 'Paulie' - if you dig into it and look at the claims every bit is nonsense.
I probably spent more time than I should have, but I was just fascinated at how much effort someone went to in fabricating the (mis)information on that site. Take just one example - they claim that they have a "fuel cell" that splits water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen at a rate of 50 to 70 liters/hour. There are two major problems with this - First, the claim is that the hydrolysis is powered by a 15A circuit - at 12 volts, this is enough energy to create about 0.15L of gas (rough number, assuming standard temperature and pressure). This is assuming a 100% efficient process - and they still come up over 300 times short of their claimed range. The next problem - let's assume that they are creating 70 liters/hour - how much is that going to affect engine performance? If we consider a 2.0L engine turning at a subdued 2000 rpm, the engine is pumping air through it at a rate of 120,000 liters/hour. Is the addition of less than one tenth of a percent of O2/H2 really expected to present noticeable results? There is no way a 50% increase in fuel economy would be realized from this addition in any case.
The basic idea - that adding more fuel (H2) and more oxygen to the engine will produce more power - is sound, and it is quite possible that benefits could be realized from it. However, it is very difficult to take any snake oil salesman's word for dramatic gains in economy, and this sets everyone back a step.
For those who are curious about such technologies, please look into the science behind them and be critical of claims, particularly those that seem too good to be true. If the systems can stand up to criticism and inquiry (and perhaps verifiable testing), then so much the better.
There actually was a posting by Paulie several hours ago that is now gone. I don't know if he or the mods deleted it. It basically was a response to Brian's earlier post about what one needs and how much it cost - but even that was more sales than really answering brian's posting. Of course, Paulie did not address gagrice's post or mine about that website. I'm assuming it got deleted my the mods for being commercial, or by Paulie after he read the follow up posts and did not have a response.
IF these systems actually do provide some benefit, my only theory would be combustion improvement. Due to Hydrogen's reaction (i.e. BOOM) and the availability of extra oxygen, perhaps it ensures the entire gasoline vapor in the cylinder actually ignites. Whether there is actually enough H2 and O2 to have an effect is over my head. Even so, I could see modest gains from improved spark, particualarly from an older carbuerated engine. But "50% to 100% - guaranteed"?!?! Sorry, Paulie, you'll have to back that up with more than a website with bad science and selling ionizers, detoxifiers, and conspiracies . . .
Which reminds me about paulie's deleted post . . .he had mentioned something in it about how they were exhibiting at a convention in DC attended by the President. Beside the fact that all it takes to exhibit at a convention is a little cash and a table, it was funny that he would use the attendance of the President to legitimize his product. Because the Jeff Otto guy, by his own words, went to federal prison because the gov't was out to get him. Last time i checked, the Prez was the head of the federal gov't . . . well, if it sells snake oil
Didn't get to read paulies reply to me. the site looked like a combination of some older ideas; ionization, steam, etc.. Can't say what the pre catalytic converter might be. "IF these systems actually do provide some benefit, my only theory would be combustion improvement. Due to Hydrogen's reaction (i.e. BOOM) and the availability of extra oxygen, perhaps it ensures the entire gasoline vapor in the cylinder actually ignites." Yep, that's kinda how it was explained to me.little hyrogen little pure oxygen combined in the manifold or plenum and BOOM! more complete burning of the gasoline resulting in more eficiency and the ability to lean out the carb. Sounds possible to me but I'm still wondering if that results in a minor gain or a significant gain.. or just a complete loss of my time and energy. Or maybe an implosion under the hood resulting in a big life insurence claim for my wife and kids.
"Yep, that's kinda how it was explained to me.little hyrogen little pure oxygen combined in the manifold or plenum and BOOM! more complete burning of the gasoline resulting in more eficiency and the ability to lean out the carb. "
...except that today's engines are computer controlled. It seems to me that the ECU would have to be reprogrammed if this were a viable technology.
Oh yeah, I forgot to answer the question posed by the title of this thread: NO!
In reply to post #85 Jeff Otto and David Lee are not the same person. whats wrong with selling mineral water, and foot massagers. Also we have sold thousands of Hafc systems already. On average people are getting double the mpg. guaranteed at least 50%. what does paul pantone being in a asylum have to do with anything? whats the problem with being a religeous leader? Whats the problem with mutiple websites?All Hafc systems have a full money back gaurantee. The videos on the website clearly explain all the parts and exactly what they do. We also have trained and certified mechanics to install and tune the sysem, or you can do it yourself if your mechanically inclined, and will send you a dvd also on how to self install.
OK Dennis Lee (ex-con) and Jeff Otto are joined at the hip.
The following is an open challenge from big time Dennis dealer, Jeff Otto claiming to want to have a $5000 challenge with any HFAC critic I would be glad to accept this - Problem is, he won't respond to my emails in the past week to negotiate terms for this test.
Pantone is the brains behind PICC. There seems to be a shortage of this product which is needed to make the HAFC usable. Clever way to put people off after they have plunked down their $1000+.
1. A guarantee is only as good as the company behind it.
2. The website does not explain anything. Websites are wonderful vehicles for educating. That website, unfortunately, is merely for selling a product that apparently the sellers themselves do not know how it works (if it even does).
3. Nothing wrong with selling multiple products. Good companies diversify. However, when each product is dubious at best and the backer is a felon, one is better served by shopping elsewhere.
Again, I am making no judgments on the viability of HHO systems. I will make a judgment on that website - it is a joke. The "science" purportedly used by their HHO system is likely the same "science" that says you can suck"toxins" out of the body through a person's feet. In my experience, anytime somebody uses the words "toxins" or "nutrients" and can't elaborate - it's generally because they don't know what they're talking about.
Look, Paulie, I don't know if you truly believe all the garbage in that website or if you are a scammer. If you truly believe it, I suggest you do a bit more research because the "science" behind it is flawed. That is fact - not opinion. Or PLEASE, educate me on how magnets can do what they say they do (see my earlier post for the flawed science in the website and respond to that)! If you are a scammer and you know it is a load of BS, I hope you and Karma meet soon.
I'm not trying to be a jerk (really), because everybody is entitled to be wrong (especially me). But expect to have to back up your points if you are putting out that website as your "proof." If I am wrong and you can educate me, I will retract everything I said. You should be open to do the same.
Boy, I go away for a week and the s... hits the fan!
Let's ignore the questions about whether it works, why car companies aren't building them, and why Target/Walmart/whoever aren't selling them. Can any HHO booster answer this obvious question: why aren't all the major gasoline USERS (taxi companies, police departments, government agencies, Fedex/UPS/etc.) buying these things by the millions? Their budgets, and, in some cases, very existence, are being threatened by high gas prices, but they're not buying? WHY?
That is a Darn good question. Just read an article about a Cab company converting their Prius cabs to PHEV. That costs at least $10k to maybe end up with 75 MPG. If they could spend pennies to get 100 MPG you would think they would give it a go. Any cabbies out there that have tried HHO?
OK - here's my findings so far, I've not been able to dedicate very much time to this but enough to find out some interesting things. So far I've built an HHO 'generator', run it on rectified mains power to supply a small, carburettor fed single cylinder Subaru motor under lab conditions, installed it temporarily in a Hyundai Santa Fe and removed it again:-
It does work under ideal conditions, by allowing leaner burn - keep this in mind however, the lean condition CANNOT be maintained under higher load conditions and to complicate matters further it seems to increase efficiencies near and above the theroetical maximum flame front propagation for C6H8 alone. Obviously this is from a higher flame propagation rate which means one COULD (and probably should given the temperature problems I've seen in the Santa Fe) retard timing.
If you do it enough to offset the losses in it's creation it sets the long term fuel trim flag in a closed-loop system, causing open-loop operation. To achieve gains you do have to regulate the output of the O2 sensors using a relatively low gain op-amp circuit so that the combustion doesn't look lean to the ECU, the only way you can do this with any degree of safety is by using an exhaust gas analyzer and if I were going to spend more time on this I would also like to monitor exhaust gas temperature at the manifold to prevent engine damage.
Modifying your engine management system to make it work well would be a major hurdle, as the number of parameters involved in making it work under normal (read very varied) driving conditions is increased over standard (C6H8) operation.
Non-feedback Carb motors look to be easy candidates as the Subaru single cylinder motor (which is fairly inefficient normally) did gain some (but not much) efficiency after modifying the mixtue. This only worked for a limited range of operating conditions however so though it might be easy you're not going to realize much benefit unless you're talking about a generator with a reasonable stable load.
I'll keep playing and see what I come up with in a small diesel motor - the more I think about it the more this is likely to work better.
I think I came into this discussion about a week after your initial postings. I wish I had read them back then. It would have saved me some typing by just saying I agree with you. Thanks for actually trying to advance the discussion.
I suppose when all is said and done, you will just be viewed as another poster in cyberspace. But at least you are backing your statements with solid logic and sound scientific principles.
Any theories as to why the addition of the Hydrogen or Oxygen (or both) allows for the leaner burn?
It's Thursday and that means time again for the longest running chat here in CarSpace, the Subaru Crew! The chat opens at 8:45 pm ET and runs until 10 pm ET. I hope you're able to join us tonight for another enjoyable evening with members of the Crew! See you there!
Feel free to join us even if it's HHO kits you want to talk about. We're not as topic-restricted in the chats and can go into anything automotive if the mood strikes us!
This topic is for discussion of the yeas and nays of HHO kits, not for selling of them. Please do not post links to websites or offer anything for sale. Postings along those lines will be removed.
Now, to get back on track.
I think a very good point was made earlier in the thread. There are MANY businesses, especially small businesses, that would benefit greatly from the outlandish mileage claims that we see regarding these gadgets. Where are the news stories telling us about this wonderful breakthrough and how it's saving the hundreds of thousands of small businesses like printers, landscapers, painters, and the like from the financial ruin of high gas prices?
The people running these businesses aren't stupid. If they really could save 25-50% in gas and it cost them next to nothing, we'd be crushed in the rush as they all sped to the store to buy what they need to make these things.
Again, I'm not against the idea of experimentation or looking into possibilities, but an awful lot of OBVIOUS scammers keep popping up promising me something that is too good to be true.
The Munsters TV show knew a good scam when they saw it and in the 1964 episode "Sleeping Cutie" Grandpa Munster invents a instant gasoline pill. That was a joke 44 years ago, but we still have scammers trying to sell the "BioPerformance pill" today.
Comments
Legitimate products do not take long to end up in legitimate stores. Legitimate stores sell products that give legitimate results or your money back no questions asked. These devices have had legitimate entities test them and they are not being sold by legitimate dealers. That should give anyone a clue as to their value.
If they worked Honda would not be spending BILLIONS to make their hydrogen fuel cell vehicle affordable. They would just put a $50 device on an existing Honda Civic and you got an 80 MPG car that would outsell every car on the planet.
This has nothing to do with physics or rocket science. It is pure snake oil sales. And PT Barnum has to be sad he was born 100 years too early.
Nobody could make money on a device or system that would ACTUALLY increase your gas mileage by 10-20%? :confuse:
Of course Honda and other companies want THEIR bloated concepts to work instead. And they're glad to see the coffee can concepts scoffed at. Big business has already spent billions and have a huge infrastructure to support. No one is going to make any money on a coffee can and an applesauce jar.
You wouldn't buy a $30 audio system for your car because you'd know it was garbage. Why would someone practically (but not quite) be giving away improved gas mileage for your car?
You really need to read what you are saying. It makes NO sense at all. If someone can take a coffee can and applesauce jar and revolutionize the automobile industry. They could make $$BILLIONS of dollars. They would not have to create a Ponzi scheme to sell it to gullible people.
When it becomes mainstream and I see people driving Sequoias like mine getting 40 MPG I will jump on the bandwagon.
Until it is just another: http://www.rubegoldberg.com/
And to answer pf flyer, I saw my cousin over the weekend and we just laughed and laughed about how simple it is. He hooked his system up to a 20-year-old Chevy work truck a few weeks ago. He had been averaging about 10 miles a gallon. Now he's getting 12. That's 20% better. He's a stone mason. He doesn't own a lab coat. So what? The concept works.
One thing I have to disagree with you on is the following statement :
Legitimate products do not take long to end up in legitimate stores. Legitimate stores sell products that give legitimate results or your money back no questions asked. These devices have had legitimate entities test them and they are not being sold by legitimate dealers.
Right now they are a lot of store that sell the so called the “TURBONATOR” in Advance Auto Parts store, in PEP BOYS,,,,,so you can see they are not obstructed from selling a product that does not work. I suggest to everyone not to spend a dime on anything that claim extra power, and fuel efficiency, whether from the store or from the WEB. Companies are going almost bankrupt like Chrysler, Ford, and GM; and if they know that some $40 gadget is going to improve mileage for their vehicles they would have rushed in developing it and testing it, and fitting there vehicles with it, which will help their sells. Do not waist your time, in any gadget, you want good fuel mileage wait for the hybrid market until it get crowded, and buy a vehicle that fit your needs.
But to say car companies are resistent borders on insane. Toyota puts out a hybrid that costs them $5-10,000 more than a regular car and they can't sell enough of them. But they wouldn't want to spend less than $100 to get similar results? Come on! That would single handedly get Ford into the black again if they could build cars with 20% better mpg than their competitors for the same cost.
So it begs the question: WHY?
Is it because the technology does not work?
Is it because it does work but there is some other downside (durability, liability)?
Those are valid questions. If it worked with no downside, why haven't the car companies jumped on it?
NOTE WELL: Nowhere in this post or any other have I said it doesn't work. I have just brought up questions that should not be difficult to answer. Because they don't get answered, it is easy to think this is snake oil or that there is some other problem with it.
On to another point. I have seen posts in other forums from people established in those forums (I don't personally know them) and they have posted promising results. BUT, it is generally of the nature "I was getting X and now I get Y." The problem, that is not a valid test. (Nor does it answer the questions about long term effects). If somebody not connected to the sales of this could just run the same course under the same (or even similar) condition, i.e. temp/wind/tire pressure, I would be happy with that. Say what you want about Popular Mechanics, that is about as close as I have seen and that doesn't look promising. Magazine tests are rarely perfect, but I don't think it is fair to just dismiss it.
Answer: Product pipeline. The next generation Prius was probably on the Toyota drawing board five years ago. You think they're going to instantly pull the plug (so to speak...) on all that investment? Toyota is a giant conglomerate. Layers of bureaucracy. Do you think the 500 designers who probably work on current hybrid technology are suddenly going to stand down when some guy shows them a HHO youtube video and says "why aren't we doing this?" They'd be as skeptical as you and demand the job security of years of research. Toyota will do HHO -- ten years from now. But the fact is, a lot of people are doing it now!
I agree to some degree with lilevis. I don't think the tech does not work. I wonder how well though. Like I said before, 'significant' increasein mpg is different than 1 r 2 extra mpg.
I think more important than that is his 2nd question ....what about durability and liability? There is an efect associated w/hydrogen called 'embrittlement". Some components become brittle w/ contact with hydrogen. I'm sure there are other potntial problems possibly too many to make it wothwhile for car makers to consider using.
However, To install such a device on an older rig yourself might bea good idea. I don't think I would try it on my newest car....yet
I would lke to see the site even if it shouldn't be on here and even if you are selling something. More info is always good
"Emission systems intentionally designed by the auto manufactures to make sure you get absolutely no better fuel economy than they programmed the system to accept and we have an abundance of evidence to back that statement up!" Yet no evidence.
"We also use six very powerful magnets that ionize the gasoline to produce smaller molecules and separate their compounds into simple elements producing a cleaner more efficient burn." Very powerful indeed to turn a compound into its elements. I guess that means there is straight Carbon going into the cylinders. The good news is, there would also be straight Hydrogen derived from the gasoline - so why even use water and electricity when magnets can give you all the Hydrogen you need? And i always thought magnets just work on Ferrous metals . . .
Even if there are valid points anywhere on that website, how can I trust these "scientists" when they don't seem to know high school level chemistry. That is a typical HHO website that is all show and no substance.
If 500 commercially employed scientists saw a technology that, if they produced it for their employer, would give them job security and advancement, I think about 500 scientists would be falling over themselves trying to use the idea for their own products. See Microsoft . . . .
looks to me like there are 5 seperate devices in your system
a hydr/generator
a covalizer? (an addative to put in your tank?)
an ionizer (this also is old tech.)
a computer to adjust for the cars onboard system
and a pre catalytic converter.
My question to you is: how much for all that stuff and the mechanics time to install
and 2nd; how much fuel savings could I expect from JUST the hyro generator?
If there's nothing to market, then it has no value. None. Because in a world where someone found a way to sell a pet rock, a device that gives a significant improvement in gas mileage would certainly be marketable.
I recall the Tornado air flow claims of 24% improvement in mileage a few years ago. Any testing I've seen has pretty much debunked that device, but just to show you that there's not much new under the sun, patent number 1115699 was issued in Nov 1914 for an "AUXILIARY MIXER FOR INTERNAL-COMBUSTION ENGINES" which sure looks like it's from the same family as the Tornado, and it claims that the invention will provide the "means for thoroughly intermingling, commingling, and uniting the elements of the explosive mixture after it leaves the carbureter and before it enters the cylinder of the motor." As the patent states, this is needed because a carbureter might function just fine under ideal conditions, but under unusual loads, or sudden acceleration, or adverse atmospheric conditions the mixture might not be commingled or united with the resultant misfire or flooding of the cylinders with unvolitalized hydrocarbons.
And we all know how painful that can be.
Point is that there are already mulitple patents for the idea of injecting hydrogen into the air-fuel mixture of an internal combustion engine including one for a combustion process with hydrogen injection that was issued to Daimler-Benz in 1976.
You would think that Mercedes would have been touting the system and how it gives their cars better mileage than their competitor's vehicles by now.
So I guess I have to take back the orignal premise that I started this post with. I'm not confused at all.
The grand and glorious physics professor and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Samuel Pierpont Langley splashed into the Potomac with his version of a flying machine. Orville and Wilbur were bicycle mechanics who never went to college. I don't even have to use their last name to make my point!
but still don't you think there must be something to it if d/benz got a patent on it?Why patent something if ther's no use for it? maybe it wasn't worth developing because the benfits weren't big enough. Can you concede that it is possible to get SOME more mpg from mixing hydogen and oxygen with gasoline?
The grand and glorious physics professor and assistant secretary of the Smithsonian Samuel Pierpont Langley splashed into the Potomac with his version of a flying machine. Orville and Wilbur were bicycle mechanics who never went to college. I don't even have to use their last name to make my point!
There are plenty of patents for inventions that really don't work or are not practical to implement for whatever reason. Right now I'd have to say HHO kits fall into that category. NOBODY is sitting on this idea because it would hurt their business.
There's a patent out there that was issued in the 80's for the design of an auto body that improves mileage by ducting the air in front of the car through the body and out the back. The idea being that instead of the air pushing on the front of the car, you give it a path to flow thorugh and thereby reduce the drag on the car. Decreased drag does lead to increased mileage. Do you see any vehicles anywhere using a system like this? No. Whether it's because they would be to expensive to make, or impractical to incorporate into the design of a car doesn't really matter. If it was a great idea, someone would have picked up on the opportunity to make some real money on it. HHO kits haven't been commercially marketed or applied yet because nobody has found it worthwhile to do so. And it sure sounds like people are looking to me.
Again, if it turns out that somehow the laws of physics change, or better yet, some as yet undiscovered process comes up that makes it actually work in a provable, repeatable manner that provides a signifigant benefit, I'm right there with you.
But I'm pretty sure there's more evidence and fact on the side of this being an elaborate MLM scheme than there is of it actually working. How many times have people here said, "I know it works, I've seen it" without one shred of evidence other than their claim? No websites to point to documenting trials or testing by independent labs to bolster their result. I really don't care how times someone says "the internet is full of claims of success". The internet is full of a lot of stuff that people believe and think they have "evidence" for. Chem trails, the moon landing was faked, Elvis sightings, eat all you want and lose weight. If you can think of it, more than one someone is out there trying to sell it to you.
Is it possible that there is SOME gain in mileage from just putting hydrogen into the mix? My gut and reports like that from Popular Mechanics is telling me no. Greater than zero? Maybe. Greater than a fraction of a percent? Unlikely.
Wanting to see proof of something beyond a wild claim is prudent. Changing the target from "signifigant" to "some" gain really only makes me even more suspicious about the claims.
I want better mileage, you want it, we ALL want it. That's a consumer need. Successful companies fill needs with products that work and the consumer WILL buy them.
The danger for us consumers is that we may want something bad enough that we'll part with our hard-earned cash on the promise that something fills that need.
1 don't work at
2 might work in a limited fashion or
3 don't produce any increase whatsoever.
I'll remind you I am one of those who said I saw a homemade one installed and operating ina '85 chevy luv p/u truck. It was very crude. And I can't verify the owners claim of 11 more mpg. But the guy is driving around with it and there must be some reason. I can tell you he wasn't selling anything. I came here to hear of some research and test results. but for the most part i don't mind listening to the "I saw one and it works" people. I are one
So what you're actually saying is you saw one and someone told you it's working. I play too much poker to be that trusting.
Being "homemade" certainly doesn't disqualify anything from being effective. But when the backyard tinkerer comes up with something terrific, it rarely stays in the backyard for long.
Since you say it was an '85 Chevy pickup it must be an S-10 since that replaced the Luv in 1982, but you'll get my point here. The EPA mileage estimates for the 1985 S-10 are 21 city/27 highway for the 2.0 liter with 4 speed manual. Any other configuration on the truck other than the diesel versions has worse numbers.
An 11 mpg mileage increase is simply a ridiculous claim to take at face value with no verification when faced with the reality of what the truck is rated at for mileage. If that pickup owner isn't selling anything it's because he doesn't have anything to sell. If he actually was getting a 40-50% mileage increase on his pickup, I know a couple of people who would want to tie up the rights to whatever it is he's done and wouldn't be shy about making the millions that would come with a product that could do that.
Have you done this simple thing to your car?
And don't kid yourself. If a product comes out that can, in fact, increase gas mileage by even 10% there's no way that $50 is going to be close to what you're going to have to pay for it. We've laid out over $2500 for gas year to date in our household. The thing would be worth $200 to me right now and the frenzy over such a device would be staggering. People paid $5000 over MSRP because they had to have a PT Cruiser and had to have it NOW. A company would be hard pressed to keep up with demand for a true gas saving device at this moment in time.
I had assumed it was a Sierra full sized pick up by Chevy.
Let us know when.
No I haven't done this simple thing to my car. You imply that if it were simple I would have already done it. Also ,I might ask, would it make a bit of difference to you if I had? My story would be no more credible than anyone elses here. For me ,although the device is very simple technology, it's not so simple to build and install. I plan to try it on my89 jeep comanche. However it is injected which is one of the variables I'm concerned with. That's why I'm here to find out all I can about this idea before i go any farther. I don't have the time to tinker with any such thing w/out having a pretty good plan of attack. Besides, I'd have to get off my duff and stop posting to forums to actually build one and try it. sounds like work!
Anyway pf, I would have to say that your theory that it can't be true because someone would be making millions is really no better evidence.
I've said it before, not everyone out there is a scammer. so something is going on worth looking into. I'd like to think this forum is open to anyone's ideas w/out so much scoffing as to drive honest folks away.
Or, maybe you can just go to youtube and type HHO in the search box. About 11.500 videos show up. That might be easier. I don't know.
This is just another scam of Jeff Otto aka Dennis lee. This guy did hard prison time for selling a device that is supposed to give free electricity. He sells mineral water and foot massagers. Want to know how to beat the IRS out of taxes, he has the info.
You all go ahead and send him $1100 for the HAFC, then find out you need another device designed by a guy named Paul Pantone that is locked up in an asylum. So you cannot return this device as you are waiting on another piece to the puzzle that is in short supply. Or does it even exist?
He also claims to be some sort of religious leader. Here are a few of his enterprises.
http://www.hiscovenantministries.org/energy/tour.htm
http://www.jeffotto.com/
http://bwt.jeffotto.com/free_electricity/free_electricity.htm
http://bwt.jeffotto.com/alternative.htm
http://www.lifetimeelectrostaticfilter.com/
http://takara.jeffotto.com/
could this be paulie? from yesterday? he didn't get back to the forum to answer my questions about his 5 mpg boosting devices.
anyhow, thanks gagrice for some fun stuff to check out.
Tuesday means Mazda chat night! Mazda ownership is not a requirement!
The chat opens at 8:45 pm ET and runs until 10 pm ET. I hope you're able to join us tonight to meet and greet with your fellow CarSpace members!
See you there!
And therein lies the problem . . .How can anybody take these devices seriously seriously when their biggest proponents are snake oil salesmen?
If people don't trust a magazine review, how about a grad student thesis? Heck, I'd even like to see a local vocational class do a little practical exercise on these things.
So many of these people claim to have "invented" or "designed" these world saving solutions. How can they have invented or designed anything if they can't even explain how or why it works.
If it improves the combustion of gasoline - terrific. I can buy that. Just please, PLEASE, explain to me how it does it. What is happening to make it burn more efficiently? These people would not have decided one day to start throwing Hydrogen and Oxygen gas down their carbs unless they had some basis to do so. Well, what was that basis?
I don't have a problem if a shadetree mechanic heard about these and said "what the heck, I'll try it. Not sure why it works but I'll try." And then did so and got improved mileage. great - I don't expect that person to know anything more than they got improved mileage (if it really happened). But I do expect all these "inventors" to "engineers" to know why it works (if it even does).
Yet none of them can say. They just throw out scientific terms but clearly have no science aptitude and it is clear to the educated eye. In other words, they are BS'ing, so i ignore them.
To all those who have actually made one of these - I hope you are seeing improvements and i am not saying in any way you're wrong. but please understand many of us want to know the reason why.
By the way, thanks to all of you for easing off on the cynical remarks to those of us trying to be straightforward about our curiosity.
Yet none of them can say. They just throw out scientific terms but clearly have no science aptitude and it is clear to the educated eye. In other words, they are BS'ing, so i ignore them.
This is what gets me. Take for example the link from 'Paulie' - if you dig into it and look at the claims every bit is nonsense.
I probably spent more time than I should have, but I was just fascinated at how much effort someone went to in fabricating the (mis)information on that site. Take just one example - they claim that they have a "fuel cell" that splits water into gaseous hydrogen and oxygen at a rate of 50 to 70 liters/hour. There are two major problems with this -
First, the claim is that the hydrolysis is powered by a 15A circuit - at 12 volts, this is enough energy to create about 0.15L of gas (rough number, assuming standard temperature and pressure). This is assuming a 100% efficient process - and they still come up over 300 times short of their claimed range.
The next problem - let's assume that they are creating 70 liters/hour - how much is that going to affect engine performance? If we consider a 2.0L engine turning at a subdued 2000 rpm, the engine is pumping air through it at a rate of 120,000 liters/hour. Is the addition of less than one tenth of a percent of O2/H2 really expected to present noticeable results? There is no way a 50% increase in fuel economy would be realized from this addition in any case.
The basic idea - that adding more fuel (H2) and more oxygen to the engine will produce more power - is sound, and it is quite possible that benefits could be realized from it. However, it is very difficult to take any snake oil salesman's word for dramatic gains in economy, and this sets everyone back a step.
For those who are curious about such technologies, please look into the science behind them and be critical of claims, particularly those that seem too good to be true. If the systems can stand up to criticism and inquiry (and perhaps verifiable testing), then so much the better.
IF these systems actually do provide some benefit, my only theory would be combustion improvement. Due to Hydrogen's reaction (i.e. BOOM) and the availability of extra oxygen, perhaps it ensures the entire gasoline vapor in the cylinder actually ignites. Whether there is actually enough H2 and O2 to have an effect is over my head. Even so, I could see modest gains from improved spark, particualarly from an older carbuerated engine. But "50% to 100% - guaranteed"?!?! Sorry, Paulie, you'll have to back that up with more than a website with bad science and selling ionizers, detoxifiers, and conspiracies . . .
Which reminds me about paulie's deleted post . . .he had mentioned something in it about how they were exhibiting at a convention in DC attended by the President. Beside the fact that all it takes to exhibit at a convention is a little cash and a table, it was funny that he would use the attendance of the President to legitimize his product. Because the Jeff Otto guy, by his own words, went to federal prison because the gov't was out to get him. Last time i checked, the Prez was the head of the federal gov't . . . well, if it sells snake oil
"IF these systems actually do provide some benefit, my only theory would be combustion improvement. Due to Hydrogen's reaction (i.e. BOOM) and the availability of extra oxygen, perhaps it ensures the entire gasoline vapor in the cylinder actually ignites."
Yep, that's kinda how it was explained to me.little hyrogen little pure oxygen combined in the manifold or plenum and BOOM! more complete burning of the gasoline resulting in more eficiency and the ability to lean out the carb. Sounds possible to me but I'm still wondering if that results in a minor gain or a significant gain.. or just a complete loss of my time and energy. Or maybe an implosion under the hood resulting in a big life insurence claim for my wife and kids.
...except that today's engines are computer controlled. It seems to me that the ECU would have to be reprogrammed if this were a viable technology.
Oh yeah, I forgot to answer the question posed by the title of this thread: NO!
Jeff Otto and David Lee are not the same person. whats wrong with selling mineral water, and foot massagers. Also we have sold thousands of Hafc systems already. On average people are getting double the mpg. guaranteed at least 50%. what does paul pantone being in a asylum have to do with anything? whats the problem with being a religeous leader? Whats the problem with mutiple websites?All Hafc systems have a full money back gaurantee. The videos on the website clearly explain all the parts and exactly what they do. We also have trained and certified mechanics to install and tune the sysem, or you can do it yourself if your mechanically inclined, and will send you a dvd also on how to self install.
The following is an open challenge from big time Dennis dealer, Jeff Otto claiming to want to have a $5000 challenge with any HFAC critic
I would be glad to accept this - Problem is, he won't respond to my emails in the past week to negotiate terms for this test.
http://www.phact.org/hafc.htm
Pantone is the brains behind PICC. There seems to be a shortage of this product which is needed to make the HAFC usable. Clever way to put people off after they have plunked down their $1000+.
2. The website does not explain anything. Websites are wonderful vehicles for educating. That website, unfortunately, is merely for selling a product that apparently the sellers themselves do not know how it works (if it even does).
3. Nothing wrong with selling multiple products. Good companies diversify. However, when each product is dubious at best and the backer is a felon, one is better served by shopping elsewhere.
Again, I am making no judgments on the viability of HHO systems. I will make a judgment on that website - it is a joke. The "science" purportedly used by their HHO system is likely the same "science" that says you can suck"toxins" out of the body through a person's feet. In my experience, anytime somebody uses the words "toxins" or "nutrients" and can't elaborate - it's generally because they don't know what they're talking about.
Look, Paulie, I don't know if you truly believe all the garbage in that website or if you are a scammer. If you truly believe it, I suggest you do a bit more research because the "science" behind it is flawed. That is fact - not opinion. Or PLEASE, educate me on how magnets can do what they say they do (see my earlier post for the flawed science in the website and respond to that)! If you are a scammer and you know it is a load of BS, I hope you and Karma meet soon.
I'm not trying to be a jerk (really), because everybody is entitled to be wrong (especially me). But expect to have to back up your points if you are putting out that website as your "proof." If I am wrong and you can educate me, I will retract everything I said. You should be open to do the same.
Let's ignore the questions about whether it works, why car companies aren't building them, and why Target/Walmart/whoever aren't selling them. Can any HHO booster answer this obvious question: why aren't all the major gasoline USERS (taxi companies, police departments, government agencies, Fedex/UPS/etc.) buying these things by the millions? Their budgets, and, in some cases, very existence, are being threatened by high gas prices, but they're not buying? WHY?
It does work under ideal conditions, by allowing leaner burn - keep this in mind however, the lean condition CANNOT be maintained under higher load conditions and to complicate matters further it seems to increase efficiencies near and above the theroetical maximum flame front propagation for C6H8 alone. Obviously this is from a higher flame propagation rate which means one COULD (and probably should given the temperature problems I've seen in the Santa Fe) retard timing.
If you do it enough to offset the losses in it's creation it sets the long term fuel trim flag in a closed-loop system, causing open-loop operation. To achieve gains you do have to regulate the output of the O2 sensors using a relatively low gain op-amp circuit so that the combustion doesn't look lean to the ECU, the only way you can do this with any degree of safety is by using an exhaust gas analyzer and if I were going to spend more time on this I would also like to monitor exhaust gas temperature at the manifold to prevent engine damage.
Modifying your engine management system to make it work well would be a major hurdle, as the number of parameters involved in making it work under normal (read very varied) driving conditions is increased over standard (C6H8) operation.
Non-feedback Carb motors look to be easy candidates as the Subaru single cylinder motor (which is fairly inefficient normally) did gain some (but not much) efficiency after modifying the mixtue. This only worked for a limited range of operating conditions however so though it might be easy you're not going to realize much benefit unless you're talking about a generator with a reasonable stable load.
I'll keep playing and see what I come up with in a small diesel motor - the more I think about it the more this is likely to work better.
I suppose when all is said and done, you will just be viewed as another poster in cyberspace. But at least you are backing your statements with solid logic and sound scientific principles.
Any theories as to why the addition of the Hydrogen or Oxygen (or both) allows for the leaner burn?
See you there!
Feel free to join us even if it's HHO kits you want to talk about. We're not as topic-restricted in the chats and can go into anything automotive if the mood strikes us!
Now, to get back on track.
I think a very good point was made earlier in the thread. There are MANY businesses, especially small businesses, that would benefit greatly from the outlandish mileage claims that we see regarding these gadgets. Where are the news stories telling us about this wonderful breakthrough and how it's saving the hundreds of thousands of small businesses like printers, landscapers, painters, and the like from the financial ruin of high gas prices?
The people running these businesses aren't stupid. If they really could save 25-50% in gas and it cost them next to nothing, we'd be crushed in the rush as they all sped to the store to buy what they need to make these things.
Again, I'm not against the idea of experimentation or looking into possibilities, but an awful lot of OBVIOUS scammers keep popping up promising me something that is too good to be true.
The Munsters TV show knew a good scam when they saw it and in the 1964 episode "Sleeping Cutie" Grandpa Munster invents a instant gasoline pill. That was a joke 44 years ago, but we still have scammers trying to sell the "BioPerformance pill" today.