Thank God for the internet…
@Tester Sorry sir, but as Wesw said “darn how many times is he gonna say goodbye?”
That “proof” was a cruel joke
I do smogs all day long at work, and I can show you any number of vehicles that are much CLEANER than OP’s truck
And they aren’t equipped with any “device”
And many of them are actually OLDER than OP’s truck
OP’s “proof” is NOT in the pudding . . . like I said, it’s a cruel joke
We all know OP’s truck would have exactly the same emissions, with the “device” removed
Like was already mentioned, it’s all really just a placebo effect 
By the way, those numbers seem to be referring to a two speed idle test, not a full-fledged dyno run smog test . . .
@amos33 : Is that the “before”…or the “after?” That figure is meaningless without a baseline.
doesn’t really matter, as far as I’m concerned
Those numbers were nothing to brag about
@amos33:
Are these links yours?
http://www.instructables.com/id/DIY-HHO-Torch-Water-Torch-for-only-4/
TechBuilder
No sir, I have no links and nothing to sell
“Using stored Hydrogen, Hydrogen Hybrid vehicles combine H2 with Air to produce Electricity to power vehicles.”
No one here is disputing that hydrogen can be used as a fuel.
That has nothing to do with claimed advantages of generating hydrogen on a vehicle and blending it with petroleum fuel.
If there were any real advantage the car makers would be all over it.
It’s the spirit of competition.
@circuitsmith “It’s the spirit of competition”
There is a real advantage and the car makers know it but cannot deploy it because this technology is still in it’s infancy. It’s far too dangerous for the novice user. At present the
best use of it is for decarbonizing the internal engine components. Contrary to some one here I have used it for that purpose and the results are that each vehicle I have used it on, runs, cooler, quieter with a slight increase in hp and mpgs.
Testing: I do not have the bucks nor the access to emission testings nor am I asking for anyone to help in anyway. I joined this discussion with the hopes of rekindling some interest in the technology.
When I use in my vehicle, the mpg will increase when I am running at 55mph in cruise control on a level road on a long trip.
But the most important factor with vehicles is when it decarbonizes a combustion engine and it does that far greater than Seafoam or any other additive.
I see my neighbors failing emission tests and spending much to try to replace components they think or are told will fix the problem. I have witnessed on man wanting to change his spark plugs and realize it’s not like the old days, it could cost $hundreds for a mechanic to do it.
So then since I have been labeled a TROLL at least 10 times already , and the why, I know not I must leave this forum permanently. I was not selling anything, nor do I advertise anything.
perhaps “It’s the spirit of comdemnation?”
in any case, Merry Christmas to all
You have been “leaving this forum” many times already. Goodby.
@amos33
Can you explain how your HHO setup decarbonizes “a combustion engine”?
How does it do it?
What part does it decarbonize? The buildup on the back side of the valves? Or the top of the piston?
We’ve gone from vague claims to pure BS. No way to know these things without careful testing. Which has not been done.
This should be good… Amos is gonna try to school Tester. I wish you luck Amos. Tester is one of. if not the, sharpest "pencil’ out here.
Blackbird
On an unrelated forum the pet troll has been there since 2008. They have their feelings hurt and “quit” about once per week. If I only had a dollar…
If I drove my un-modified car with cruise control set at 55mph on level ground for a long distance (400+ miles) I would also experience a substantial mpg increase. Several times I have gained at least 5 mpg driving that distance at 60 to 65mph without cruise control while crossing two mountain ranges.
In 1964 I presented a crude drawing of the same HHO method of powering an internal combustion automobile engine producing hydrogen by electrolysis with electricity from the generator (I don’t recall seeing any alternators at that time) to my 7th grade science teacher. He was impressed by my idea but had to break the bad news. Of course I was not the first to have this idea. The even worse news was those pesky laws of physics preventing it from being in any way practical.
@HB,been away for awhile,have to call BS on those wallet lightners,any engine that rarely sees 3000 rpm will have hardly any noticable gain and those carburators were pure BS.The engineers have gathered most of the low hanging fruit.The only way an HHO system would help,would be if it increased efficiency,I went through the loud exhaust business when I was a kid,the only thing that ever benefited from losing the stock muffler that I drove later on in life was a 92 Nissan pickup,you could actually feel the difference when it opened up(Nissans have notoriously small tailpipes anyway).In the seat of the pants department,when the super turbo muffler rusted out and fell off, on the 06 Dakota the stock stainless steel muffler was reinstalled-felt the same.
John Ligenfelter went into detail about what to do about exhaust systems and the expected gain,the best exhaust systems actually help extract exhaust,most of the catbacks dont. If you have a muffler that the engine has to force the exhaust through,then you can expect a reasonable gain,of course I’m not talking about a computerized engine either(which can sometimes be fooled into dumping more gas into the combustion chambers)
In the case of the mentioned Nissan,either the stock muffler was too restrictive or the tiny little tailpipe was to small.Believe it or not the exhaust system on the 06 Dakota seems to be plenty free flowing(no hissing,.but a good tone)
Yes I cant even comment on those mystery carburetors…we were told of its existence and never saw it.
But a cat back system that relieves back pressure…on a turbo charged vehicle…WITH engine computer adjustment… does net gains…at the expense of more fuel burned. I went from 180HP to 262 HP at the wheels on a 1.8L Turbo 4 cylinder…w 5 Valves per cylinder. Much of the gains were from the computer adjustments. However to reach 262 the cat back portion no strike that…the entire exhaust had to be made larger and more free flowing. The intake is questionable bec the stock box may have flowed just fine.
The stock exhaust pipe on this engine is very restrictive. Keep in mind we are talking power gains…gained by the ability to flow more fuel and turbo boost…this does not point toward “efficiency” but the burning of more fuel… So we are discussing basic Hot Rodding here and not and efficiency discourse nor a something for nothing discussion. The engines ability to breathe should never come into question on a quest for more power…but thats a whole different subject.
I agree that you cant bolt on a big noisy free flowing exhaust on most vehicles and expect power gains …the turbo and its controls change all of that in a hurry. Forced induction is more than a proven power adder when executed properly AND with computer controls to safely sustain higher boost levels. Again…we are discussing a totally different subject here at this point.
Blackbird
Amos33 has apparently been on a few other forums a couple of years ago espousing HHO and its benefits. On one of them he even references increased fuel economy and provides a warning about using a spark arrestor…
Amos just can’t prove any of his theories
Based on those numbers he provided, I know that his “device” does not result in lower emissions
Apparently, he thought those were numbers to brag about . . . he was mistaken
If you want to promote something, you had better know what you’re talking about
And he doesn’t
But he’ll just keep talking, and hope somebody believes him