Forty years ago when a gas shortage caused a great deal of suffering and turmoil there were quite a few mystererious solutions offered in magazines. The 2 that were most prominent were home made ethanol and the 8 cylinder to 4 cylinder conversion. Of course we can now see just how poorly ethanol is as replacement for gasoline and it doesn;t require a great deal of imagination to see just how costly it would be to re-engineer an engine and then accept the performance with the loss of 50% of the displacement while understanding that there is no way there would be a doubling of fuel mileage. If anyone dove into either of those efforts they might understandably wish to justify their expense and efforts but despite my lack of rocket science technical knowledge my hands on experience with automobiles leads me to be quite certain that the gains would never equal the investment. If there were ever any gains at all.
@amos33 - please contribute one single comment regarding the facts about your system. Bringing up unrelated real systems doesn’t count.
This guy’s not going to do that
He’s probably patting himself on the back right now, because he knows he’s so much wiser than everybody else 
I could send my colleague to talk about chemtrails . . . OP might be an eager listener 
BTW. Who bought off Slick 50?
Petrolon Inc. of Houston, TX owns Slick 50.
Mountainbike wrote:
“It’s sort of like “dark matter”. You can’t see it, you can’t find it, you can’t measure it, but the math suggests that it MUST exist.”
Actually it has been measured, at least its effects, which lead to the proposal of its existence.
“Astrophysicists hypothesized the existence of dark matter to account for discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects, and their mass as calculated from the observable matter (stars, gas, and dust) that they can be seen to contain. Their gravitational effects suggest that their masses are much greater than the observable matter survey suggests.”
Also, someone compared HHO to cold fusion.
Cold fusion didn’t start out as a scam.
Fleischmann and Pons were more guilty of desperation than deception, IMHO.
@texases Reduces emissions.
@circuitsmith HHO started off as Oxyhydrogen as fuel for “limelight” street lamps in the 19th century.
@db4690 If you prefer to discuss ‘chemtrails’ bring up your man
@jtsanders “And the math suggests that HHO doesn’t work” Show me your math to prove that HHO does not work?
Merry Christmas to all
My shot at he math: The electrolysis of water in standard conditions
requires a theoretical minimum of 286 kJ of electrical energy input to
dissociate each mole of water, which is the standard Gibbs free energy
of formation of water. One mole is 18 grams. You will get 1/2 mole of O2
(16g) and 1 mole of H2 (2g). This is the direct energy required for
the reaction. Energy is lost in IR drops and alternator
inefficiencies. My guess is 70% at best, so you need 286/0.7 = 410 kJ
from the engine. But gas engines are 35% efficient at best, so the
energy from the fuel would be 410/0.35=1170 kJ
The enthalpy of combustion for hydrogen is 286 kJ/mol, so the 1 mole
of H2 will produce 287 kJ of output.
So you start with 1170 kJ input and get 286 output, a net loss. Or, another
way to look at it, the overall efficiency is 0.7x0.35 = 0.25. So you
start with 1000 J, which gives you 250 J, which gives you 62 J, etc.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html
NB: some of the numbers may be off, but the overall loss is there irregardless.
@Bill Russell Thank you sir for your answer about the math. Your answer is intriguing what with the kilojoules and moles; remembered something about them in chemistry class in high school.
Found this under: Fringe Science and Fraud Section:
“Brown’s Gas” is oxyhydrogen with a 2:1 molar ratio of H2 and O2 gases, the same proportion as in water. It is named after Yull Brown, who claimed that it could be used as a fuel for the internal combustion engine.[4][14] It’s also called “HHO gas” after the claims of fringe physicist[15] Ruggero Santilli, who claims that his HHO gas, produced by a special apparatus, is “a new form of water”, with new properties, based on his fringe theory of “magnecules”.[14]
So if you accept the above statement you may notice the '2:1" molar ratio. And if that be the case then your math is off a bit and should be 2 moles of H2 and 1 mole of O2.
We are not just burning pure H2 but we are mixing 2H2 + O2 + C8H18 (Octane) and if you agree, then please recalculate. Start by balancing the equation …
Isn’t it interesting how that all the naysayers (skeptics) all point back to “An article in Popular Mechanics reports that Brown’s Gas cannot even increase the miles per gallon (MPG) of your vehicle, and that the only real savings come from tampering with your engine, which may confuse the anti-smog controls.[18]” which was done in 2009, I do believe. HHO was in its infancy in those early days and yes there were a plethora of scammers running amuck. Wow!
@amos33 - “Reduced emissions” is a claim, not a fact. How do you KNOW this?
And the math is real simple - a gas engine has a thermal efficiency of around 25%, maximum 33%. So it has to burn 3X the amount of gas to give off X energy, that’s the energy available to make HHO. Even if the conversion of water was 100% efficient, one is still losing 67% of the energy to make HHO.
Whys is this difficult for you to understand?
Its so difficult for me sir, because I stated Reduced emissions and you discuss energy loss in it’s conversion? Are you more interested in energy loss than in emission reduction?
A single fact regarding emissions reduction (or any of your other claims) would be appreciated.
The equations are correct. The gases are H2 and O2, not this vague HHO. Hydrogen and oxygen when formed immediately combine to form the H2 and O2 molecules.
Fact: NOx emissions reduce to O% @ 549 rpms on my 2005 Chevy Suburban 1500
Fact: NOx emissions reduce to 1% @ 2239 rmps on my 2005 Chevy Suburban 1500
Make that reduction in NOx (ppm) not percentage(%)