Ok, I’ll bite. How did you determine your engine is running cleaner, smoother, and so on?
Keep it in simple technical terms please.
If I found the fountain of youth I wouldn’t worry about the nay sayers. Enjoy your free power @amos33. Some of us are quite skeptical though.
It's very hard to convince someone who has never bothered to study this topic
How exactly did you study this topic? Reading a sales brochure is not “studying this topic.” It is very hard to convince us because it is BS. You are making an extraordinary claim, which means you need to bring actual proof (not “well I promise it works on my car!”). Please upload your lab notebook with the data that you gathered to show how your engine performs with and without the HHO system running.
Ignorance of simple math and physics make people suckers for all sorts of schemes from Jim Baker’s timeshares to cars that burn water with just a little pill you drop in the gas tank. Cold fusion anyone?
@amos33 That old “they doubted Orville and Wilbur” line is the number one sign of someone selling a scam. As for the Space Shuttle, we all know what happens when you burn hydrogen and oxygen. Lots of energy released. The problem with HHO devices is they take 3X or more the amount of gasoline energy to create the HHO as given off by burning the HHO. The more you make, the worse it gets. And yes, I’ve been studying HHO for years. Test after test proves it a scam. Believe what you want, but you’ve provided nothing to back up your claims.
This thread pretty well illustrates why the HHO scam (and all others…) march on year after year after year…
@Mustangman , “The Law of Conservation of Energy says HHO generators won’t work but that won’t stop people from claiming otherwise. The Fish carburetor, magnets on the fuel line, mothballs in the gas tank and a bunch of other non-sense has been around for so long, no one knows how they started and they surely won’t die. You can see it most anywhere on the internet.”
Just wait until the price of gas shoots back up to $4.00 a gallon again. The internet and late night info-mercials will explode (again) with all of that stuff and probably some new ones too. (Think up some technical sounding non-sense NOW and maybe you can make a fortune when the time comes, as it inevitably will. . . )
How about solar panels on the roof, use the electricity to separate the hydrogen from your municipal water, store in tank, use hydrogen to power car, heat water, stove, etc. Too costly to build such a system? Too dangerous to have a big tank of hydrogen strapped to the side of your house?
I know it’s useless to try to educate some people, but “releasing the energy stored in water” is totally bogus. It takes energy to decompose water into H2 and O2, equal to the energy released when they combine. TANSTAFL. (There Ain’t No Such Thing as A Free Lunch).
I agree, it’s poor education.
yeah , shadow, not that I ll ever do it but…, the idea is to integrate the panels into the truck cap.
and the small turbines behind the grill shouldn t effect the drag that much, it doesn t take much power to produce a little hydrogen gas anyway…
what I m thinking is gassifier tho…
how would a truck run with a wood burning gassifier system?
the same? would it foul the combustion chambers" clog the exhaust?
it would be cool to be able to pull over and gather some deadwood if I ran out of gas…
I have this 75 ford that I ll be able to play with, once I get my 85 ford right…
@amos33
"Ok, I’ll bite. How did you determine your engine is running cleaner, smoother, and so on?"
Me Too! I believe that you’ve been asked this 3 times, now. If your engine is running cleaner, what is your new oil change interval and all of my cars run very quietly, so how can a car run quieter than quiet? And why is this? What noise is diminished?
Cooler? Does the new low operating temperature (which should be determined by the thermostat) interfere with the engine control module’s proper regulation of the engine and transmission? What modifications did you have to make?
"I use it in my vehicle, not so much to save gasoline…"
I thought that was the intent of this device? What make, model, and model-year is your vehicle and what is your actual MPG?
Make me a believer!
CSA
The external tank of the Shuttle used hydrogen fuel and oxygen oxidizer. Using it to bolster your assertions about HHO doesn’t work because the water isn’t cracked and then re-bonded in the vehicle as it would be for an automobile system. The Orbiter, which is what most people think of when they think about the Space Shuttle, uses hydrazine as a fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer.
It's very hard to convince someone who has never bothered to study this topic, much less, tried it.
Sorry…Study the topic??? Are you kidding??? How about you first get a basic understanding of physics. You need that before you can begin to understand why HHO is junk science.
How about solar panels on the roof, use the electricity to separate the hydrogen from your municipal water, store in tank, use hydrogen to power car, heat water, stove, etc. Too costly to build such a system? Too dangerous to have a big tank of hydrogen strapped to the side of your house?
@Ed Frugal That is actually a useful way to store solar energy. Costly, yes! It IS a good clean car fuel.
Dangerous, not really. H2 storage tanks are no worse than propane tanks. Better actually, because if they leak, the H2 floats away very quickly, the propane falls to the ground and hangs around a bit. Flame temperature of H2 is only 11% higher than propane so not really more dangerous. H2 gets its bad rep from the Hindenburg.
There will always be those who believe you can get something for nothing. The HHO amounts a perpetual motion machine, which I dreamed of when I was 10 years old. It’s amazing that “mature” adults fall for this stuff.
"the main engines of the space shuttle use Hydrogen and Oxygen, when combined and ignited produce electricity and water/HHO is the reverse product, releasing the energy stored in water. "
Tell me how this pertains to a jar of water with electrodes in it passing current…That WILL produce a miniscule amount of H2… The H2 produced cannot supplant the vehicles main power element of gasoline.
Now take your example of the Space Shuttle…the Space Shuttle is “Charged” with Oxygen and Hydrogen… A LOT OF IT… and it is a HUGE amount of potential energy… It also took two Nuclear Power plants to help to “charge” or “Fill Up” those power reserves in the Shuttle… The Shuttle has an ENORMOUS amount of stored energy on board…and it took Enormous amounts of power to make that happen.
So again…How does this pertain to two electrodes passing a small current in a jar of water ?
You are essentially using that Fact (while leaving out info) and Fiction mixing again…Just like my formula calls for.
Blackbird
Make no mistake…there is nothing wrong with Hydrogen as a power source in and of itself. The power it takes…if provided by Solar or Wind…etc would be the environmentally desireable method as compared to using fossil fuels to generate and store the Hydrogen. But this is a process…it takes a long time…and it takes a lot of BTU’s to accomplish. If we used fossil fuels to do this process…it negates the entire thing. Gasoline is an incredibly dense source of power…and IT took incalculable amounts of solar energy to “produce” if you will and it’s rather hard to compete with actually.
The unit in the car theory…doesn’t have the power available on board to generate the amount of H2 to supplant the gasoline as a prime mover.
We can go more in depth…but I think many here already get it and then some… But obviously…the debate continues. LOL
Blackbird
@Rob Knox Thank you sir, I will do as you advised. The skeptics are having a field day, so I leave it to them to enjoy their victory.
It's simple physics.You cannot get more energy/power out of the something than the amount of energy/power that’s put in.
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there. You seem to be making a “second law of thermodynamics” argument against HHO, and that doesn’t wash. After all, a good hybrid system DOES increase MPG, despite its (obvious) compliance with all the laws of physics.
What happens is that kinetic energy is only OCCASIONALLY desired in a vehicle; at other times, you simply need to dump it. The “status quo” for a non-hybrid is 0% recapture of KE–anything “better than zero” has the POTENTIAL to save energy.
Now, DOES HHO save fuel? I have to go with a solid “no!” NOT “because second law,” though–because the HHO system is FAR too puny, and ill-designed, to make any difference.
You still aren’t getting more power out of the hybrid than is put in. Hybrids simply increase the efficiency by which the power is used by not dumping so much of it overboard.
HHO, on the other hand, requires Harry Potter levels of magic to work, because it supposedly gives you more energy than you put in based on the claim that putting energy into cracking hydrogen out of water returns the energy you put into it and then returns still more energy without any further external input. That is impossible.
No, there’s no reason you couldn’t use your unwanted KE to generate the HHO. HHO (a well-designed setup) has the potential to function as a hybrid. The only thing I could say, is that it would have a hard time competing on an economic basis with a more-conventional hybrid.