Alternative Energy Forums

It does work. From what I see people are crying: "SCAM!", because they believe they won't need any gas at all anymore. This is of course not correct.

Yeah it's possible. With instructions and some supplies, you can built a device that allows your vehicle to operate by using a mixture of gasoline and water as a source of fuel.

G94

All HHO fuel cells are designed to accomplish is to "assist" in fuel savings not to completely take its place. To convert completely your internal components would need to be all stainless steel as not to corrode ans seize up. No it is not a scam, although several units are less than desirable, as long as you do not need to add more energy in to gain your total out, it is a great way to do your part in a reduction of fossil fuel.

Enjoy!!
Steve N.

This is basically a repeat of what others have said:

HHO is not a fuel source, it is a technique for obtaining better gas milage from other fuels. It takes more electricity to split H2O into Hydrogen and oxygen than you can get back from "burning" them back together. This is basic chemistry/physics.

However, using the hydrogen and oxygen in an engine who's primary fuel source is gasoline or diesel leads to more complete combustion of the fuel, thus better gas milage. The electricity it takes to split the H2O is very small compared to the gains from more complete combustion.

This also goes to show how much energy is stored in a gasoline molecule (theres lots and lots) and how much of that energy is wasted because of inefficient technology.

danaap

It is a scam. First, there is no such thing as HHO or "Brown's gas". 2H20 + energy yields 2H2 + O2. Second, it takes more energy to split apart a water molecule than you get back from burning the mix in an engine. The idea that you can draw power from the car's electrical system and make a fuel(H2 and O2) to mix back in again and somehow get more power shows an absolute ignorance of basic science. You can't get more energy out of a system than you put in.

These "over-unity" schemes are all over the internet. They all rely on converting energy into some other form, and then adding it back into the system. During that "process" they claim to gain an increase in energy, somehow.

Not going to happen. As always, the question is never answered - Why isn't every manufacturer that makes an engine using this "technology"? It's just old-fashioned electrolysis of water, after all, very low tech. No patent problems. It's a scam - That's why! Most of the people pushing the scams are also selling something.

solarcook

Ref:Solarcook

You're misinterpreting the process that's going on.You are correct in the over-unity theory being nonsense.But that is where everyone gets confused.You are extracting more energy from the fuel tank than you are generating in hho..but..the petrol/(gas) combustion in the cylinder is a slow even burn flame-spread.The power generated by each stroke is released in a controlled way.The hho is far more combustible and has a far faster flame-spread.When combined with the stoichiametric fuel air mix,the flame spread is much faster releasing the energy in the mixture faster...the piston reacts faster.You are not saving energy,You are saving money... on petrol by using more and cheaper energy.

gavmk

gavmk,

I see what you're saying, but by increasing the rate of burn you are effectively increasing the compression ratio(At the top of the stroke, anyway). Even if the system works, this sounds like a good way of blowing a hole in piston heads, or causing other engine stress. If you just want the fuel to burn faster then all you need to do is actually increase the C.R.

The gas will burn much faster(called detonation) and you'll get the same effect. Engine parts have a certain mass that can be accelerated only so fast, especially under load, without eventual damage. That's how engines are designed, to minimize damage, while still giving enough power. If you increase the rate of burn with "nitro", nitrous oxide, or hydrogen(or anything else), you're bypassing the engineering that is built into an engine to give it reliability. Pistons, rings, or bearings tend to be the failure point.

That usually comes with a price, and it's a lot more than you saved on fuel. Something to think about, anyway.

solarcook

I originally started looking at Hydrogen when fuel prices peaked and ended up going to a "Free Hydrogen Plans" site that got me hooked and I ended up buying their "Free" plans.

I was really disappointed with what they sent me - Very complex and out of date plans (120 pages). The first page congratulated me for buying them, the second page was obviously from the author who said they were FREE.

I have no doubt now that Hydrogen does reduce your fuel use, as posted earlier in this thread, it helps you to burn all the fuel in the cylinder that normally goes out your exhaust as unburned hydrocarbons.

In reference to the previous posting, Hydrogen does not introduce undue above engine spec pressure in the cylinder when ignited, it has a lower flashpoint and enables the petrol to be fully ignited and turned into power for the beginning of the cylinder down-stroke. The engines are not designed to only use 60% of the petrol, they are designed to use 100%+. If the rings go, it will be because they were going to go in the first place with regular engine wear.

In my learning about Hydrogen I became very frustrated at how difficult it was to get credible free advice. It seemed that the majority of advice was from the scammers trying to get you to part with your money.

I did something about it - As I searched the internet I started recording the good info sites and ended up making a Forum to concentrate this info in one place. Though it is still quite young, I am getting over 8000 page views per month.

I even found real FREE HHO plans and put them there for anyone to download.

Running this Forum is a passion for me and there is absolutely NO ulterior motive - I do not make a cent from it.

There's great info for anyone thinking about this, or for the seasoned veterans in HHO.

Come and have a look if you are interested.
http://www.reduceyourfuelbill.com.au/forum

Regards
Paul

Basic Chemistry says elements have to be in the same state, how are these people makings the carbon chain of gasoline accept the available atoms? covilizer, preheating, etc. It will never work until you restructure the carbon chain of gasoline to a stable vapor gas to allow the bond to occur. I already built one, good luck.

By the way, once we made progress with our research and development we found yu do not need this positively charged H2O for better mileage. We just need to maximize to potential that fossil fuel has as a stable vapor. "complete burn" %2 percent emissions.

If you produce hydrogen buy itself then that means you have already figured out how to separate electrons from the hydrogen atoms for electric use and have a dry solid hydride storage cylinder??

Happy inventing but be careful, every car company has produced since 1929 ford "but were they doing it right" it was dangerous. I was scammed buy the Hydro assist fuel cell certification as a tech. But I leaned lots of ways not to do it, but it helped me figure out how to do it. ---Fill your intake manifold with Brownsgas and have a kickback on startup or a spark and watch out.

volvoguru

If you lot really want to put forward even the idea of 'free fuel' then you at least have to make your whole argument clear. For example, one guest saying "introduction of browns gas with gasoline or anything means only water is created as a product". What a load of twaddle. He writes a whole paragraph full of false science and big words - and half of it is false. I really get fed up of seeing people pretending to be scientists and inventing information. What he said could happen - ie only water as a product - but only if you had several terawatts of energy to split the atoms and make new elements! Apart from the fact there is no truly free energy source or over unity devices - except (only possibly) zero point energy - you (collective) need to put together a VALID argument before you propose it. And if it were possible - Nature Journal would have published an article!

helgrind

(Oct 15 2009 06:13 AM)Guest Wrote:  Can we run our car with water and gas? Can anybody tell me if the HHO Gas is real, or is it another scam?

johnandrews52

I have looked at the thermodynamics of the HHO water for fuel systems and think that the systems have some merit, but not for the reasons generally given. Any gasoline or diesel engine has an inherent loss of power due to the slow combustion of the gas. To compensate for this, the cylinders have to be set to fire before the piston gets to the top of its travel. Timing the explosion this way give the fuel enough time to burn that it is at maximum explosive power as the piston starts back down. However, the unavoidable result is that the piston must work against the burning fuel for the last part of its travel on the upstroke which robs the engine of about 15% of the power it otherwise would have.

Hydrogen burns faster than gasoline and so a hydrogen engine can be set to fire at the top of the piston's travel. So, it is well established that a hydrogen engine can get about 15% more horse power than a gas engine can.

To the extent hydrogen acts as an accelerant when mixed with gasoline or diesel, and increases the flame speed of the gasoline or diesel, you can set your timing to fire closer to the top of the piston's travel and increase your horsepower.

However, I think there is another reason people may be seeing increased gas mileage from these systems and it is as follows. If you take a car battery and hook it up to two electrodes immersed in a liquid electrolyte, you will clearly see hydrogen and oxygen bubbling off. If your were to feed those gasses into your intake manifold, that represents extra energy which will reduce the amount of gasoline you would need. So, it you put one or two extra batteries under you hood and hook them up to the electrolyser, you have created a simple hybrid in that the energy stored in the batteries is being fed into the engine to supplement the gas in your tank. When at home, you simply recharge the batteries. I suspect that many of the people who recored significant gas mileage increase may have the system hooked up to their batteries in this manner and that, if they checked their batteries' charge at the end of each trip, it would be significantly lower than the charge at the beginning.

I have a solid state hydrogen generating apparatus that I use to fuel my vehicle. However, it can only produce hydrogen at a constant rate, which I have set at just enough to keep the vehicle cruising at 30 - 40 mph. As a result, extra power for acceleration is a problem. I am going to try hooking an electrolyser to the system and run it on battery power and have it kick in when I need extra hydrogen to accelerate.

One important caveat to these HHO systems is as follows. One of the leading causes of serious hydrogen accidents is the inadvertent introduction of oxygen to a partially charged hydrogen tank as this mix is highly explosive. Since this is exactly the mix you are introducing into your engine with these devices, it is important to keep the amount of gas produced at any given time very low and burn it immediately.

And good luck

Biostan

HHO is probably the best solution so far to come up with an idea to clean up the emissions of road transport. While I don`t believe it reduces fuel consumption it certainly reduces exhaust emissions co2 etc. If only for that reason I will keep using my hho cell in my car.

For those who have stated they seem to get more mileage etc. (able to break the laws of thermodynamics) I say to them good luck after all did not Mr. Tomas Kelvin (famous for the Kelvin scale) say Quote "Heavier then air machines cannot fly" better duck of you see an A380 coming toward you.

Keep trying you will succeed.

Correction - detonation is the early ignition of the fuel mixture caused generally to to insufficient octane rating. The cylinder pressure compresses the air/fuel mixture and it ignites before the proper timing (with the spark plug). The optimal octane rating is the one that lest your vehicle utilize the full ignition timing without detonation to ignition retardation. From the experiments we have conducted in the shop, the vehicles to run smoother, and the exhaust gas temps are typically 10 degrees cooler at the catalytic converter, and 5 degrees cooler at the muffler. That is typically a sign of better fuel propagation (complete fuel burn process over the entire piston crown area). If your vehicle runs better on 89 RON, but you use 87 RON because it's 10-15 cents/gal. cheaper... what if HHO plus 87 RON gives the same performance? Ponder that.

In the 1960's & 70's, gas was derived from the top 20% of a barrel of oil. In pursuit of cheap gas, now oil companies use the top 80% of a barrel. We were getting steak, now we are receiving "scoop-meat" from Taco Bell. Like your arteries, this leads to excessive carbon deposits in the combustion chamber & on the valves - which lowers combustion efficiency... and increases the onset of detonation. Your car's computer senses this detonation (via the e.s.c. sensor) and retards the ignition timing. That means less performance and power - AND FUEL ECONOMY.

One much older car idled and ran MUCH better with the ex-cheapo (tubing & plastic soda bottles) test kit installed. We have averaged 1-3 mpg increases on our test mules thus far. For $60-$80 bucks, thats not bad... you'll spend that much on a tune-up for basically the same results. And no detonation. Theoretically, since the mixture is burning cleaner, over a perion of time the combustion chamber will be cleaner - leading to continued efficiency and less chance of detonation. Fewer vehicle maint. costs down the road should offset the expense of HHO system maintenance.

Our next project is a long-term installation on the parts delivery truck.
That's a good mix of "in-town" & "highway" driving in a full-size truck.
If I can increase the power and drivability without a mpg penalty, I'm very happy. If I get both plus 1 or 2 mpg increase - money well spent

I tried this a couple of years ago. Bought the plans from one of the many internet sites with the usual very impressive claims. Spent a lot of time tweaking, I had two of these units hooked up at one stage. I used it on an old diesel, seemed simple enough no electronic injection or electronic anything else to worry about, hook it up and away you go. There were some benefits but I got a refund (without any problems) because at no stage was there ever an increase in fuel efficiency, in fact a slight decrease in every instance. I tried quite a few self designs with either plate or wire electrodes, with same results. The motor ran smoother and seemed to have very slightly more power at higher revs but the most noticeable difference was from the exhaust. I could put my nose right up to the exhaust without being able to notice anything, none of the usual black smoke etc. No increase in fuel efficiency though, I got a slight decrease (used more fuel) in every instance. Though there might be some potential in various other designs, the simple electrolysis (jars tubes and wires) kit did not work for me.