I see what your saying, you would have to change the sensors in vehicles to make proper air/fuel ration calibrations. I believe your right because the ECU uses either a Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor, which measure tempurature difference, and/or a Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP)to measure air NOT Hydrogen/Oxygen gas. The car also uses an Oxygen sensor in the exhaust to keep the ratio around 14.7:1 (Air:Fuel). A Manufacture can either develope sensors that measure HHO gas or reprogram the computer
@drijfkip1 -- Do you not understand why they used an external power supply? It was to fully test the limits of the theory. Read the paper, they used a 4.0 L fule injected diesel engine, that's not a tiny engine. It's actually bigger that most vehicles made today. The tests are valid, HHO can save fuel if the vehicles are configured correctly, i.e. the system is properly leaned out....
One thing further is that I read a German university paper 2008 /9 on the subject, they were testing on farm machinery and stationery engines if I recall, but they had findings which would tie in with the Australians report here, they found savings did occur and the use of fuel lessened by volume with addition of HHo. ( so who is scamming who) would be my question here !!!
interesting to note, that if you dry out liquid fuel, IE: to remove all the water content, it will not burn !!. {strange but seemingly true...} ... also worth noting that in water there is oxygen, Hydrogen, deuterium, tritium H3, & a 4th, H4 which mass volume is vast, though difficult to gain, noted if I recall correctly by a Swedish university work I read, but H4 remains elusive, we have not I think even "begun to scratch the surface of this technology" as yet guys...
@mptrax --- I'd have to agree with that statement. A car running only on water has not been proven. I have seen some interesting tests though. Science tells us that you cannot create or destroy energy and since water is a compound wouldn't it follow that some of the energy used to create water in the first place is stored in it? The problem is we do not have an effective way to extract it. If we ever solve that question maybe a car could run on water...
@roofy2k As a chemist I can tell all of you skeptics that this is real... put a 9volt battery in some salt water and watch the bubbles from the electrolysis of water. Efficiency is affected by electrolyte used, amperage, and surface area of the electrodes, among other variables. If done right it can be very efficient. HHO torch generators are great for jewelers , the Hydroflux torch kit gives you an extremely small flame that is extremely hot.
@drijfkip1 --- They tested many different levels of HHO addition with 6% being the top end. Charts in fig. 2, 3, and 6 show gains started around 3 LPM in a 4L diesel engine. The point of the study was to show that the addition of H2/O2 gas changes the combustion process reducing the amount of energy lost thereby reducing the amount of fuel consumption.
@dinoalberini --- No they didn't read the data. They replaced the part of the diesel fuel with the energy equivalent amount of HHO and included the energy required to make it. This is where the gains came from, the reduction of HC fuel usage. The tests show gains are possible under the right conditions...
@BlackDogSociety They said they used an outside power supply to produce H2O2 gas. The facts presented in this video were never proven as stated. I read the paper.
@dinoalberini --- You read the paper? Apparently not, they clearly stated that in reality the H2O2 gas would be made on board. They also stated that the energy used to make the H2O2 gas was computed and taken into account. It's a proven fact that adding H2 gas to HC fuels changes the burn characteristics allowing for leaner mixes with more power out. Fig 2, 3, and 6 show gains in BTE started at just under 1% or about 3 LPM of H2O2 gas. Re-read the report but with an open mind...
@BlackDogSociety Yes. WOULD being the key word. It has never been done. We can discuss it when somebody publishes a paper in which it has been done. Until then you have no proof.
I wish I had four hands, so I could give this video four thumbs down!!! I like how at the 8 min mark he talks about using an external power source to generate the hydrogen. Calculations are only "research" for mathematicians not engineers. What's the point of doing research if not applying the technology in question? And has anyone actually seen this literature. The links only lead to the school's site and not the document.
@dick117 --- Click the link marked "Link to the document" in the description of this video. It's smacksboosters [dot] 110mb [dot] com / HHOdiesel [dot] pdf . Now about the use of an external power source watch?v=JYq511CCSRQ Using an external power source provides a better means of controlling the experiment. Scientist routinely use mathematics to help explain the results. Now as far as real world testing goes look up Ronn Motors tests in Volvo big rigs, gains using on-board power were seen.
@dick117 you have hit the nail on the head. Adding more fuel, in the form of HHO, into an internal combustion engine does improve the energy output per revolution of the engine. More fuel = more power/mileage. The reality (scientific papers) shows that. The problem is where does the energy come from the split the water in to HHO?
@pinguFlies If it comes from an external power source - as in the cited paper - then how do you lug that additional power source around and what fuel do you use to power it? As we all know converting energy from one to another is not 100% efficient and some of the energy is lost. If the fuel from the engine is used to generate electricity some energy is lost. If that electricity is then used to split water in to HHO more energy is lost.
@roofy2k --- "where was the proof?" In the peer reviewed scientific paper. No laws of thermodynamics were broken, power is still lost in the process. HHO simply allows you to use less fuel to power the engine. Oh and this is a mirrored video not my work...
@pinguFlies - Read the paper it specially says, "But in reality it will be produced from the battery/alternator..." They used an external to test the limits of the gains. Adding HHO does more that simply replace part of the fuel, it extends the lean burn range while increasing the BTE of the burn. So you can use less fuel and get more usable power out. Figs 2, 3, & 6 show gains in BTE started @ 3 LPM for their 4 L diesel engine. Using the right set up you can get gains in MPG with these systems
So the question becomes if there are gains. Very small gains is the cost of equipment and installation even worth it. Or would it be better to pursue something that can create a real substantial improvement.
It's a question a utilizing potential energy. The potential energy in HHO is not anywhere near what is required to create it. H2O2 100% hydrogen peroxide would actually have some potential because the reaction is purely chemical. But using a reaction that requires a high energy input is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it.
@Jotter324Studios --- It's not about the potential energy in HHO, it's about better utilizing the potential energy of the HC fuel. This video isn't about the practicality of using HHO on a commercial basis, it's simply about whether or not it works. The answer is that it does...
@BlackDogSociety We have those already they are called octane boosters. There are thousands of fuel additives out there that help HC burn better. Regardless of whether a thing works or not it's pointless to waste energy on something that doesn't work well and that has such limited potential.
@Jotter324Studios --- HHO works much better than the octane boosters on the market. Then there's the cost of those additives both monetary and environmentally, those additives are all fossil fuel based. No I think more is gained by using H2...
@Jotter324Studios --- Read the study, it clearly states that adding H2/O2 gas can save fuel. Nothing has been taken out of context. What you fail to get about these systems is that they do not change physics. Adding H2/O2 gas changes the chemical composition of the fuel allowing for a leaner operating range without losing power. No new energy is created, energy is still lost in the process....
@BlackDogSociety simple science. There are 2 hydrogen's in and H2 molecule. There are 20 Hydrogen's in a gasoline molecule. I will admit that adding oxygen to a any combustible mixture will increase burn. But the increased BTU's from adding a trivial amount of Hydrogen and Oxygen is almost laughable compared to the potential energy of gasoline or desial for that matter. If you want to do something really great figure out how to make an internal combustion engine 70% efficient instead of 25%
@Jotter324Studios --- As far as making the ICE more efficient that's where the gains come from. This study, as well as others, shows gains in BTE are seen by adding relatively small amount of H2/O2 gas. Of course it's nowhere near 70% but it is more efficient nonetheless...
@Jotter324Studios --- True, greater gains are possible if you could harness waste heat but that is a whole other topic. As for the potential of both fuels you should watch Thunderf00t's video on high speed explosions, watch?v=65KIexy4New While it is true that HC fuels have a higher HV when compared to H2 but it's the other attribute of flame speed that becomes relevant inside the combustion chamber...
ii think its same with supercharger..using more energy but u can get extra power becouse of pure O2 and H2. imgine if we compressed this O2 and H2 to turbo charged using 30 psi turbo it will make huge different becouse we compreesed pure O2 and H2 same like nos
wasn't skeptical at all, I know any combustable fuel will run a combustion engine, I build engines and have run all kinds of different fuels. I use a tiny drycell to run a small weed wacker engine, it turns a 2kilowatt permanent magnet alternator I originally made for a vertical axis turbine. Yup, ya tune up an engine it will run entirely on hho, browns gas, hydroxy.. whatever ya want to call it :-\
Just read where the US government will mandate that all cars have these on them this year. The US government says that I am the only one that meets the strict government guidelines. My jam jars and stainless steel wall plates are the only ones that are US government approved. So send $500 to me today and get US government approved never buy gasoline again jam jars.
If what you are saying was true then when he injected the HHO into the cylinder and then proceeded to adjust the air to fuel mixture ratio adjusting screw, he would have been increasing the amount of gasoline consumed per minute not decreasing it.
If the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke does not change how can the MPG improve?
On the other hand if the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke is reduced them and only then does the MPG improve.
So the bottom line is it is the act of reducing the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke that increases the MPG not injecting H2/O2.
Watch this video from popular mechanics on a modified and optimized Hydrogen-Powered Turbo Prius.
Note
That he mentions that even with the turbocharger the engine now puts out 10 percent less horsepower than on the original naturally aspirated gas engine, also look at the major reduction in driving range.
@ke4uyp --- First off this video series is about the theory that adding H2/O2 gas (aka HHO) made on-board with the HC fuel can improve MPG. The study shows it can improve MPG. The video of the Prius does not prove or even suggest that this theory is in error. Secondly, similar test were done with gasoline engines with similar positive results. It works much better in diesel fuel engines but it still can work with gasoline engines.
@BlackDogSociety If the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke does not change how can the MPG improve?.
On the other hand if the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke is reduced them and only then does the MPG improve.
So the bottom line is it is the act of reducing the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke that increases the MPG not injecting H2/O2.
@ke4uyp --- "If the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke does not change how can the MPG improve?." By a better thermal convergence giving more HP. More HP leads to more MPG. I've done it with my CAI mod. But. the amount of the diesel fuel injected did change, read the study. The act of adding HHO allows for the reduction of diesel fuel with no reduction in the output HP, in fact it gave a gain in HP using less fuel.
@ke4uyp -- No, it's not. When you increase the TE of the burn you increase the HP. When HP increases in normal driving conditions the need to accelerate is reduce and more MPG is the result. So simply adding HHO can influence MPG with no other mods. In my case using my CAI mod I reduced the pumping losses to improve my HP and I was able to post an average MPG gain.
@BlackDogSociety I am sorry but you have absolutely no tangible scientific evidence to backup that statement.
When you inject HHO into the cylinder the oxygen sensor responds by telling the ECU to reduce the amount of fuel injected into the engine, this is where the improved MPG comes from, not from an improved flame speed.
@ke4uyp --- On the contrary, the DOE and NASA, among others, have stated an increased flame speed improves fuel efficiency. That is a scientifically proven fact. The study referenced in this video shows that HHO can have the same effect as what was seen by NASA and the DOE... BTW and increase in O2 read by the O2 sensor tells the ECU that more fuel is needed, not the other way around as you state here...
@BlackDogSociety Once again you are wrong when you inject HHO into the cylinder the oxygen sensor registers a richer mixture from the hydrogen and this is what causes of the ECU to REDUCE the amount of fuel injected into the engine.
@BlackDogSociety When ZeroFossilFuel did his run time test, for the engine to run properly with HHO injected he had to lean out the carburetor air to fuel mixture ratio adjusting screw, he clearly states this in his video. This is real world evidence that injecting hydrogen into a gasoline engine causes the engine to run the rich not lean.
@ke4uyp --- You need to broaden your scope on things and look up how the O2 sensor works. I do believe you are confused. No big deal really we all make mistakes, in this case I think you are mistaken...
@BlackDogSociety The key points of the video showing the hydrogen powered Prius is that a ICE running exclusively on hydrogen produces less horsepower than the same engine running on gasoline.
This is proof positive that hydrogen has less energy or you could say BTU potential than gasoline.
So if you inject HHO and into a gasoline engine it is not going to increase horsepower. It will In fact lean out the air to fuel ratio and would cause a decrease in horsepower output.
@ke4uyp --- No it is not 'proof positive'. You have a limited understanding of Hydrogen's potential when mixed with hydrocarbon fuels. Read the data in the stated peer-reviewed document...
@BlackDogSociety You just admitted that ZeroFossilFuel leaned out the mixture.
So this would cause a reduction in gasoline consumption, because when you adjust the screw for a lean mixture you decrease the amount of gasoline going into the cylinder. So the MPG increased from doing this not from adding HHO.
@ke4uyp --- You are an idiot. Of course he leaned out the fuel mixture. That is how you can save fuel using HHO. It's a scientifically proven FACT that H2 added to HC fuel allows for leaner operation without losing any HP. You can say what you will, the bottom line is you can save fuel using HHO...
@BlackDogSociety I totally disagree there has been no laboratory controlled testing of a gasoline engine using HHO that demonstrates an increase in MPG. Quite the contrary the few laboratory controlled tests that has been conducted has shown just the opposite. If you have a video showing a gasoline powered car being tested under laboratory controlled conditions then by all means please present this evidence now.
@BlackDogSociety No I do not believe that HHO improves MPG on diesel engines. The tests presented in this video is invalid because the power source for the HHO production was external not from the diesel engine itself.
@BlackDogSociety This experiment was not a closed loop system, consuming 7.5Kw's from the power grid to make the HHO to inject into a an internal combustion engine is not a practical demonstration of this technology.
But more importantly it was not conducted on a gasoline engine this test was done on diesel engines.
How many people drive diesel powered cars? This study proves nothing about using HHO with gasoline powered automobiles.
@ke4uyp -- They used an external power source as a matter of control. This is a proper procedure when you are testing the limits of a theory. They may have used the amount of energy you claimed with the upper limits of the test but the data in figs 2, 3, and 6 show gains in TE and MPG at a much lower power use. There is also publications by the DOT that refers to other test using HHO where gains were documented in diesel engines. The biggest problem you have is with acceptance...
@BlackDogSociety OK enough with the vague references to the DOT.
Point me toward the actual DOT documents. If you cannot provide me with a link to these documents then at least give me the name of the article and the year it was published. Otherwise stop mentioning references that you cannot produce.
@ke4uyp --- I've posted this so many times already, here it is again:
The FMCSA division of the DOT published this doc, tinyurl com / DOT-doc. Read section 1.2.3 - "Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use..." Oh and a Hydrogen Injection system is defined as an electrolysis unit in a previous statement...
@BlackDogSociety The FMCSA division of the DOT may have published this paper but they did not do the test, the
ETV Canada, Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. June 2005. Hydrogen Fuel Injection System Technology Fact Sheet for Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd. Available at: w w w etvcanada com / graduates asp. Accessed December 22, 2006. Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd
did the testing and without the original data this information is worthless.
@ke4uyp --- The fact remains that a division of the US government saw fit to make regulations regarding the safe use of on-demand H2 injection systems as a method of saving fuel. Your opinion is just that, an opinion...
@BlackDogSociety Yes you are right the U.S. government excepted this single Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system written by a company that manufactures electrolyzers in Canada, that for some unexplained reason no longer has this study available for public review. The only evidence that this document ever existed is a vague description of it.
@ke4uyp -- Really, I found the document here: tinyurl com / 4ol9lto and here: tinyurl com / 4gjyrq7 Amazing what you can find if you keep an open mind...
@BlackDogSociety OK I can now verify that this test is invalid. The reason is very simple they used a 1992 60 series Detroit Diesel the company Detroit diesel did not introduce their first electronically controlled diesel engine until 1993. I can guarantee you if this test was repeated on a electronically controlled diesel engine there would be no measurable improvement. Also the claimed 4 percent improvement would not even occur in the real world due to content variable load conditions.
@ke4uyp --- More B/S denial on your part. This was testing done by an accredited lab and the findings are published in a document from the DOT. Who are you to question that? Have you done such tests? Can you offer anything other than conjecture?
@ke4uyp --- Oh and you do realize that the engine in the peer-reviewed study mentioned in this video was electronically controlled and they posted gains. I think that trumps your theory...
@ke4uyp --- "This is not the actual test study report it is only a summary of that report published by the Canadian government" Based on supporting tests by a CEE and CARB testing facility. Again this trumps your conjecture. "No it certainly does not the power source for the electrolyzer was not the diesel engine alternator." You do know that a famous naysayer says this was the proper way to test these units, don't you? watch?v=JYq511CCSRQ
This experiment was not a closed loop system, consuming 7.5Kw's from the power grid to make the HHO to inject into a an internal combustion engine is not a practical demonstration of this technology. But more importantly it was not conducted on a gasoline engine this test was done on diesel engines.
How many people drive diesel powered cars? This study proves nothing about using HHO with gasoline powered automobiles.
@SuperSoylent --- You know they did that as a matter of control. They also factor that in when they concluded that adding H2/O2 gas gave a savings in fuel. This procedure was exactly what a famous naysayer says is needed, watch this video....
watch?v=JYq511CCSRQ
Then look up old comments where I point out a document from a division of the DOT and how they claim HHO works. But don't stop there, look up Ronn Motors testing in Volvo big rigs. Real world tests that back up the claims in the paper
@SuperSoylent -- Proof has been given, see the peer-reviewed study this video is about for starters. You are however claiming that I as well as many other HHO'ers are snake oil salesmen, prove that claim, can you?
@SuperSoylent -- Ok then have you seen the postive data? How do you explain it? Could it be that the application of basic physics is in error? Could it be that the answer isn't about gaining energy? Could the answer be that H2 added to HC fuels allows you to waste less fuel? You seem to think that all of us HHO believers think we are creating energy where none exsisted before, that is not what is happening. Please explain exactly why adding HHO violates any law of nature?
blah blah alternator blah blah do this cant that.....
science science science... according to science it doesnt work, well how about the science doesnt work? science, physics and all that have been altered befored well not the laws have changed before its not the a new thing, so if a person claims this,,, then meet him in person, test it the generator out and see for yourself! until then STFU
@SuperSoylent -- Nope, you are wrong, I have looked at the science behind it that's why I know it can work. Without a doubt H2 added to HC fuel changes how the fuel burns, it always has and it always will. The only question is can this change overcome the losses involved in making H2 on-demand from water. The answer is Yes it can. It really doesn’t matter that some test show otherwise, the important factor here are the test that prove it does. Quit focusing only on the negative...
@SuperSoylent --- There is where the misunderstanding begins. Using H2 on-demand isn't creating energy, it's recovering energy that once was lost. H2 added to HC fuel has been shown to increase the lean burn range of the fuel while increasing it's TE. So you get more power out of the burn using less fuel. This does come at a cost but the increase TE offsets the converting losses. The net result is a fuel savings. FYI, I don't sell these units, I'm just a researcher who mirrored this video.
H2/O2 mixture was generated using 24 V external power supply.
But in reality it will be produced from the battery/alternator
arrangement of the engine."
So this only proves that H2/O2 will increase the engine economy with an EXTERNAL power source added. Until you can create the H2/O2 on demand and still show improvement, you have proven nothing. Yes, hydrogen added to the air intake will add to the fuel intake. Tell me when you get there. Until then...
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Silly rabbit, don't you know that they included the load required in their computations when they concluded that H2/O2 gas made on-demand improves fuel economy? Did you also know that a dept. of the DOT published guidelines for using H2 in commercial vehicles that states using H2 from on-board electrolysis units as a supplement was shown to save fuel? Again show me why it can’t work, can you?
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Making posts in 500 characters sometimes requires the use of acronyms, quit your bitching. The FMCSA division of the DOT published this doc, tinyurl com / DOT-doc. Read section 1.2.3 - "Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use..." Oh and a Hydrogen Injection system is defined as an electrolysis unit in a previous statement...
@BlackDogSociety You missed my point on the DOT statement. I know what it means. I was commenting on your use of it in the sentence which then read, the department of the department of transportation. My comment was on the redundancy you are using. I also saw that in the tests with the extremal power source, it states the only H2 was injected, not H2/O2. That kind of negates the on demand system from your experiments. Plus, where is the double blind study? What outside observer was used?
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Oh I see the problem, you just can't read. I said A dept of the DOT, the FMCSA is A dept. of the DOT. And no, read the whole section of the DOT doc as well as section 1.5. H2 and O2 made on-board from the electrolysis of water gave a 4% reduction in fuel use. You are not one of those comment pickers who pick apart sentences and use them to spin the topic are you? Sad, truly sad....
@BlackDogSociety Well, with all your ad hominid attacks and dancing around the points I make, I think I'm done wasting my time with you. Until you can make the test legitimate and done completely, not just "kinda the same," you have still proven nothing. You need to try much harder. And like I said, if this is proof, go get your Nobel prize and the James Randi money! Seriously, if you don't, then you are admitting that you have not yet proven anything.
@InStunnedDisbelief --- What points did you make? As I said this is not MY proof, I cannot do those things. I can however report on proof when I find it and I've done that.
@BlackDogSociety It's not proof that on-demand HHO will work. Only proof that hydrogen will increase mileage. You are making the link and this paper is hardly scientific. It is missing some crucial work that still needs to be done to back its assertions.
@InStunnedDisbelief I also would like to add that the tests done with an external power source do not take into account the losses experienced with the conversions in energy. For on-demand use, you need to covert chemical energy to mechanical, to electrical, to chemical, back to electrical, back to chemical and then use that chemical to produce mechanical energy one last time. Every time you convert energy, there are losses. Heat is a loss, a big one. This will not work, sorry, but true.
@InStunnedDisbelief --- READ THE WHOLE PAPER... They accounted for the losses. They took the energy required to get the H2/O2 gas added in the energy value of the resulting H2 then lean out the diesel by that amount. The results were an increase in BTE as well as a savings in fuel usage. In short they used less fuel and got more power out, including the converting losses. And no this is not free energy, the gains come from a better energy convergence of the HC fuel.
@BlackDogSociety You make a lot of assumptions. Although I do know who Desertphile is, I wouldn't call him my friend. In fact, I don't remember even commenting on one of his videos. This is yet another Fallacy you are presenting. The tests do not seem to be very scientific to me. Like I said, when you do the test as a complete setup and can repeat the test for through unbiased third parties, then talk to me.
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Well when I see DP as your 10th sub and read your rhetoric it’s an easy correlation to make. While your opinion is noted I think I’ll go with the peer-reviewed data. BTW there are other tests like the ones done by Ronn Motors that posted gains of 22% in Volvo big rigs…
Take your proof and go get your Nobel Prize! If you have proof, you get the prize! When do you expect any car companies to solicit you for your device? I suspect that they would pay millions for this! Way to go!
@BlackDogSociety Do you truly believe that by using electricity from the engine, you can produce enough HHO to more than make up the difference? If you can do that, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, your video means nothing. The idea of getting this gas through electrolysis is old news, hundreds of years old. If it was possible, it would already be in your car. Until someone can prove that they can do it, I'll stay unimpressed.
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Well you can stay a in-stunned-disbelief, it make no difference to me. FYI the report shows that in their 4.0 L diesel engine changes in BTE started at about 3 LPM. So yes, you can produce enough HHO to make a difference. BTW your "If it was possible, it would already be" logic is lame, why do you think we still have research scientists????
@BlackDogSociety "So yes, you can produce enough HHO to make a difference" WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? If you can do this, then go get your Nobel Prize! Talk to James Randi, he's got a million dollars waiting just for you! If you do not apply for Randi's million dollar challenge, that only proves you're a failure. You damn well rest assured that if i had this proof you claim to have, I'd be getting my millions and awards.
BTW the name of my account has nothing to do with HHO.
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Proof is in the peer reviewed published data. You want me to pass someone else's work off as mine? The data shows gains in TE starting a 3 LPM for the 4.0 litter engine used in the test. For confirmation of this fact look at fig. 2, 3, and 6 of the published study. Read the study, it contains all the proof I need know that this works. Show me actual data the proves it doesn't work, can you?
Dude your stuff is boring keep it simple we want to know MPG before and after done. Does it improve your mileage that all we want to know. I so far is not imprested with HHO.
I have one installed on my ‘99 Nissan Frontier with and EEFI.
The only thing I do notice is when I put my thumb over the HHO hose so that will build pressure and let go. It does make the idle go up. wow
Now if we could store the HHO as we decelerate and let it go as we accelerate we might have some thing
@wootencarmona --- What kind of test have you done other than the thumb over the hose test? Some people have done test on their vehicles and found little to no positive results while others have shown positive MPG gains. This video series is about the theory that HHO changes the way Hydrocarbon fuels burn and that can save fuel and reduce emissions. This theory has been lab tested and the results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Adding HHO can save fuel and reduce emissions.
@TheGreenPowerGuy --- First things first, HHO has been scientifically proven to improve fuel efficiency, see the peer-reviewed study this video links to. It shows that HHO makes the engine more efficient by changing the burn characteristics of the fossil fuel releasing more usable power from the burn. Yes there are losses involved at the alternator but the gains in BTE out weigh them. About the device you are pushing, send me one and I'll test it. Send me a PM if you are interested...
The study he may be citing (Elsevier: Effect of H2/O2 - Fuel 89 (2010) 378383) showed a whopping increase of 31KW on a diesel engine of 250KW output... at a cost of 28KW of input to the cell and a cost of $1000s for the cells. Sorry, 3% is not impressive since the same engine properly tuned can achieve more than 40KW of increase for $100s in labor at a good garage.
That's actually not as good as standard gains from water injection alone (Yes, its benefits vary greatly from one engine to another), which is the secondary effect of HHO generation. And yes proper injection timing would probably compensate for the net effect of the HHO injection.
Can everyone please stop referring to 'H2 + O2 as HHO? You are damaging the sanity of chemists around the globe, and there is nothing at all special about the product of water electrolysis other than it being wet.
@mcskifter --- "Can everyone please stop referring to 'H2 + O2 as HHO?" Just think of HHO as the trade name for the mix of H2 and O2 gases. Just like syngas is the mix of H2 and CO gases, table salt is sodium chloride, baking soda is sodium bicarbonate, and lye is sodium or potassium hydroxide...
@BlackDogSociety *sigh* You are right. It's mostly the bizarre claims that HHO is some magical hyrdoxy plasma or something with amazing properties nobody has ever seen before, that get me pissed off.
Part of your list there (table salt, lye) I can easily accept because they were in use before their elemental constituents were identified. I have to wonder though, if we are truly supporting the advancement of the species by accepting idiotic nomenclature. I'll eventually get over it, thanks.
Published by Elsevier. Progressive Librarians Guild Calls for Elsevier to End Corrupt Publishing Practices. Merck paid Elsevier to promote Vioxx in a series of fake journals, called the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, to appear as a legitimate, scholarly peer reviewed medical journal. Vioxx can induce heart attacks.
From this article, we learn that fake journals can be bought from the source that Smack quotes from, to prove that HHO increases miles per gallon. Only from a Bozo like Smack can we expect bought and paid for fake studies.
@EnergySupply2008 --- Hmmmm... So a big money corp paid for a series of published articles from a publishing juggernaut. We must ask ourselves; a)Are the big money corps for or against HHO? b) Elsevier published over 1300 journals are all of them bought? c) Elsevier was caught with their hand in the cookie jar already, do we really think a topic like HHO could be valuable enough for them to risk another scandal over, especially considering the money is on the other side of the results
@EnergySupply2008 -- and d) do we have data from another source to judge their findings by? Answers:
a) Big money is against HHO.
b) Of course all of their journals are not faked
c) If you'd would have been caught selling out would you do it again for something like HHO, I think not
d) Yes, the DOT has a published document that states in limited lab testing gains are possible. Also there are other studies form other countries that show similar results.
@mcskifter: Good point bringing up H2O injection. For a proper study, there should have been tests comparing HHO, H2O, H2 and O2 seperately with a range of injection percentages.
But, sorry to say, HHO is here to stay and the chemists of the world can go sob in the corner. It's used by millions to refer to H2/O2, or Browns Gas, and is used by commercial manufacturers of HHO machines for welding and such.
Umm.. what? There is no 2/3rds ratio involved in this experiment.
I can only imagine you think they're talking about using water, or h2o in this experiment, when they're actually using hydrogen peroxide, or h2o2?
Oh well, interesting food for thought but since I don't think buying enough hydrogen peroxide to make this work is going to be convenient, I'll wait for an industry adaptation of the technology.
@Jermbot15 ---- Ah, they did use water not hydrogen peroxide, or h2o2, can't you read??? They electrolyzed water and split into H2/O2 gas. Come back when you learn to read...
@GroundSloth1 --- "How much longer must we wait?" I guess as long as it takes for you to believe what you read, assuming you even read the report. Look up Ronn Motors and their H2GO system. They have posted a 20%+ gain in fuel economy in field testing with Volvo big rig diesel trucks... You can choose to believe the people who say it's impossible or you can look at the facts that shows it works. The choice is yours...
Australian study supposed fuel savings at 19, 22, 28 KW load.
First page says 15.07% 15.16% 14.96%
Last page says 7.3% 8.1% 4.8%
Those Australians cannot even keep their lies straight and BlackDogSociety does not know how to read and interpret lies. Ronn Motors has not had their claims tested by the EPA, you know, that agency that puts the MPG stickers on vehicles.
All BDS does is lie. He knows no other method of communication.
@EnergySupply2008 - Read the entire report and stop taking things out of context. The first page is the over-all savings factoring in the amount of fuel that was replaced by HHO, the last page is the gains related to the increases in BTE only. Quote,
Page 6 "The brake specific fuel consumption of the engine
reduced by 7.3%, 8.1%, and 4.8%":
Page 4 "By inducting H2/O2 into the diesel engine the maximum fuel savings were recorded as approximately 15% (15.07%, 15.16%, and 14.96%..."
@BlackDogSociety - The Australian study used a Dwyer RMC air flow meter to measure the HHO flow. At 0 Celsius at sea level. air has a density of 1.2 grams per liter. Hydrogen 0.08988 g/L and oxygen 1.429 g/L. So, HHO = 0.08988 + 0.08988 + 1.429 divided by 3 = 0.53625 g/L. Because the density of air is 2.24 times greater than HHO, they were actually feeding 2.24 times more HHO than they thought. This throws off all their energy calculations. FLAWED study = BULLSHIT study.
@EnergySupply2008 --- Prove to us that their meter wasn't calibrated for HHO, can you? In fact the Epoch EP-500 comes with a built in flow meter that is calibrated for HHO, you don't know what you are talking about. Your speculative BULLSHIT is as stupid as your backwards assumptive BTU math. Build it, test it under lab conditions, and have your results published, then you can say for sure their energy calculations are off...
@coasterpro --- But the article does explain how the power consumption is compensated, "The total rate of fuel consumption is calculated as the sum of diesel, the diesel equivalent flow rate of hydrogen and the diesel equivalent energy needed to produce H2/O2 mixture." Also it gives you the LPM rates and the percentages of diesel energy equivalent for each amount of HHO used. It even tells you the brand name of the HHO generator used. You have more than enough information to use.
I must concede that point as I thought you were referring to a different study, but you seem to have lost the line 2 down from that. "The decrease in the total fuel consumption is due to the better combustion of the formed mixture owing to higherflame speed of hydrogen and overall leaner mixture (as shown later)."
the key thing I want to point out is the line overall leaner mixture. this means that the study falls into the error that a lot of others do.
the leaner fuel mixture lead to a loss of power and an increase in the damage on the car. I would also like to point out where it says NOx emissions where increased. ". . .whereas the NOx emission increased."
@Don -- Sorry, wrong again. A lean mix with HHO gave an increase in BHP. This is the same result NASA got in the 70's when they added H2 to a gasoline engine. H2 extends the lean burn range allowing for a safe lean operation without engine damage. The added HP comes from an increase in TE, meaning more power is used instead of being wasted in the exhaust. HHO works if done correctly...
and in the 70's that wasn't true and now that's not true. if you insist to site experiments read and more importantly understand the full paper first.
Bari used wall electricity, where the losses in generating the eletricity are at the power plant, NOT with the on board generation of eletricity. Using a 32% efficient engine to power a 50-62 percent efficient altenator, the results would have been a loss.
@ES2008 --- Damn son can't you do math correctly? I've told you this many times an alternator uses less than 2% of the energy from the gasoline or in this case diesel, of that energy (the < 2%) it wastes 38% -50%. In the Australian study they used a load for the HHO system that was 4.84% of the desiel and got a 15.07% gain @ 19 KW load. I can't help it if you can't understand simple math. There you go again spewing your crap...
@Don --- Chasing my tail? You come here spouting your propaganda with no facts or tests to back it up. If you asked me you are chasing your tail, not the other way around...
Sorry, show me the experiment where NASA used H2 produced from the engine's own power? Yeah, didn't think so.
The NASA experiment used the engine's heat and a Methanol reformer to extract H2 from an external tank of Methanol. The gas as mixed with the engine's normal air/fuel mixture in the carburetor.
NASA is far form the only people to have experimented with H2 injection, but in every case an external tank was used because that's the ONLY way it works.
@coasterpro --- How is H2 from NASA test different from H2 from electrolysis? Other than how it was created it's not. So since H2 extends the lean burn range of HC fuels it works from electrolysis too. Oh and sorry but MIT did a on-board H2 generation device so NASA isn't the only one. But again, built one, test it and have your results published by a peer reviewed scientific group...
// How is H2 from NASA test different from H2 from electrolysis?
*sigh*
Methanol is a form of stored energy, where as water is not.
In the case of the Methanol very little energy is required to release the energy already stored in the liquid, which is why they can get away with using the waste heat of the engine.
In the case of water 100% of the energy stored in the form of HHO via electrolysis has to come from the engine itself, and you can never regain that energy in any form.
@coasterpro--- No MIT used a electrically generated plasma to pre-burn part of teh gasoline releasing H2 in the process. They then lean out the remaining gasoline and burned it with the liberated H2. This allows for higher compression ratios and leaner burn while increasing HP. It was speculated that a 50% gain in MPG was possible. ArvinMeritor funded or bought the product. See tinyurl com / 9xoqa
@justintempler --- Talk about not being able to read... The MIT Plasmatron was speculated to give a 50% increase, not HHO. Read the damn link provided... Also that added HHO (H2/O2) added under the 5% from the study in this video gave them a 15% increase in fuel economy, you seem to have missed that point too... READ THE WHOLE REPORT....
I see what your saying, you would have to change the sensors in vehicles to make proper air/fuel ration calibrations. I believe your right because the ECU uses either a Mass Air Flow (MAF) sensor, which measure tempurature difference, and/or a Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP)to measure air NOT Hydrogen/Oxygen gas. The car also uses an Oxygen sensor in the exhaust to keep the ratio around 14.7:1 (Air:Fuel). A Manufacture can either develope sensors that measure HHO gas or reprogram the computer
Ferniesplatanos 3 weeks ago
People keep coming up with this research, but don't understand the conclusion
They used a 11 KiloWatt industrial electrolizer on a tiny engine.
they did not test an HHO system in a car !
drijfkip1 1 month ago
@drijfkip1 -- Do you not understand why they used an external power supply? It was to fully test the limits of the theory. Read the paper, they used a 4.0 L fule injected diesel engine, that's not a tiny engine. It's actually bigger that most vehicles made today. The tests are valid, HHO can save fuel if the vehicles are configured correctly, i.e. the system is properly leaned out....
BlackDogSociety 1 month ago
SCAM!!!!
bigdave6633 1 month ago
One thing further is that I read a German university paper 2008 /9 on the subject, they were testing on farm machinery and stationery engines if I recall, but they had findings which would tie in with the Australians report here, they found savings did occur and the use of fuel lessened by volume with addition of HHo. ( so who is scamming who) would be my question here !!!
Thom.
fuelban 4 months ago
interesting to note, that if you dry out liquid fuel, IE: to remove all the water content, it will not burn !!. {strange but seemingly true...} ... also worth noting that in water there is oxygen, Hydrogen, deuterium, tritium H3, & a 4th, H4 which mass volume is vast, though difficult to gain, noted if I recall correctly by a Swedish university work I read, but H4 remains elusive, we have not I think even "begun to scratch the surface of this technology" as yet guys...
Thom in Scotland.
fuelban 4 months ago
HHO enrichment is true... cars running on pure water is a bullshit !|
mptrax 4 months ago
@mptrax --- I'd have to agree with that statement. A car running only on water has not been proven. I have seen some interesting tests though. Science tells us that you cannot create or destroy energy and since water is a compound wouldn't it follow that some of the energy used to create water in the first place is stored in it? The problem is we do not have an effective way to extract it. If we ever solve that question maybe a car could run on water...
BlackDogSociety 4 months ago
@BlackDogSociety Yeah ! Well said. Simple and right.
mptrax 4 months ago
@roofy2k As a chemist I can tell all of you skeptics that this is real... put a 9volt battery in some salt water and watch the bubbles from the electrolysis of water. Efficiency is affected by electrolyte used, amperage, and surface area of the electrodes, among other variables. If done right it can be very efficient. HHO torch generators are great for jewelers , the Hydroflux torch kit gives you an extremely small flame that is extremely hot.
MantisRay861 5 months ago
Look at that figures. They used six percent HHO !
That is a huge amount that no bubbler under the hood can ever produce !
Where did the HHO come from? From a industrial Epoch EP500 machine.
Does it consume any power?
Yes. A staggering 11.5 Kilowatts !
So this video actually proves that these jars and wires projects are not very effective.
drijfkip1 5 months ago
@drijfkip1 --- They tested many different levels of HHO addition with 6% being the top end. Charts in fig. 2, 3, and 6 show gains started around 3 LPM in a 4L diesel engine. The point of the study was to show that the addition of H2/O2 gas changes the combustion process reducing the amount of energy lost thereby reducing the amount of fuel consumption.
BlackDogSociety 5 months ago
@BlackDogSociety yes, but they spent more energy in making hydrogen gas than the energy gain. As expected.
dinoalberini 1 month ago
@dinoalberini --- No they didn't read the data. They replaced the part of the diesel fuel with the energy equivalent amount of HHO and included the energy required to make it. This is where the gains came from, the reduction of HC fuel usage. The tests show gains are possible under the right conditions...
BlackDogSociety 1 month ago
@BlackDogSociety They said they used an outside power supply to produce H2O2 gas. The facts presented in this video were never proven as stated. I read the paper.
dinoalberini 1 month ago
@dinoalberini --- You read the paper? Apparently not, they clearly stated that in reality the H2O2 gas would be made on board. They also stated that the energy used to make the H2O2 gas was computed and taken into account. It's a proven fact that adding H2 gas to HC fuels changes the burn characteristics allowing for leaner mixes with more power out. Fig 2, 3, and 6 show gains in BTE started at just under 1% or about 3 LPM of H2O2 gas. Re-read the report but with an open mind...
BlackDogSociety 1 month ago
@BlackDogSociety Yes. WOULD being the key word. It has never been done. We can discuss it when somebody publishes a paper in which it has been done. Until then you have no proof.
dinoalberini 1 month ago
I wish I had four hands, so I could give this video four thumbs down!!! I like how at the 8 min mark he talks about using an external power source to generate the hydrogen. Calculations are only "research" for mathematicians not engineers. What's the point of doing research if not applying the technology in question? And has anyone actually seen this literature. The links only lead to the school's site and not the document.
dick117 5 months ago
@dick117 --- Click the link marked "Link to the document" in the description of this video. It's smacksboosters [dot] 110mb [dot] com / HHOdiesel [dot] pdf . Now about the use of an external power source watch?v=JYq511CCSRQ Using an external power source provides a better means of controlling the experiment. Scientist routinely use mathematics to help explain the results. Now as far as real world testing goes look up Ronn Motors tests in Volvo big rigs, gains using on-board power were seen.
BlackDogSociety 5 months ago
@dick117 you have hit the nail on the head. Adding more fuel, in the form of HHO, into an internal combustion engine does improve the energy output per revolution of the engine. More fuel = more power/mileage. The reality (scientific papers) shows that. The problem is where does the energy come from the split the water in to HHO?
pinguFlies 1 month ago
@pinguFlies If it comes from an external power source - as in the cited paper - then how do you lug that additional power source around and what fuel do you use to power it? As we all know converting energy from one to another is not 100% efficient and some of the energy is lost. If the fuel from the engine is used to generate electricity some energy is lost. If that electricity is then used to split water in to HHO more energy is lost.
pinguFlies 1 month ago
@pinguFlies Ergo you are wasting fuel if you use an HHO system driven by your engine you are wasting fuel. See Dateline NBC - HHO scam.
pinguFlies 1 month ago
@roofy2k --- "where was the proof?" In the peer reviewed scientific paper. No laws of thermodynamics were broken, power is still lost in the process. HHO simply allows you to use less fuel to power the engine. Oh and this is a mirrored video not my work...
BlackDogSociety 8 months ago
@BlackDogSociety it allows you to use less gas or diesel fuel by replacing some of it with HHO fuel that was produced with an external power supply.
pinguFlies 1 month ago
@pinguFlies - Read the paper it specially says, "But in reality it will be produced from the battery/alternator..." They used an external to test the limits of the gains. Adding HHO does more that simply replace part of the fuel, it extends the lean burn range while increasing the BTE of the burn. So you can use less fuel and get more usable power out. Figs 2, 3, & 6 show gains in BTE started @ 3 LPM for their 4 L diesel engine. Using the right set up you can get gains in MPG with these systems
BlackDogSociety 1 month ago
@ramquez31 --- Keep your gay fantasies to yourself...
BlackDogSociety 9 months ago
So the question becomes if there are gains. Very small gains is the cost of equipment and installation even worth it. Or would it be better to pursue something that can create a real substantial improvement.
Jotter324Studios 9 months ago
It's a question a utilizing potential energy. The potential energy in HHO is not anywhere near what is required to create it. H2O2 100% hydrogen peroxide would actually have some potential because the reaction is purely chemical. But using a reaction that requires a high energy input is like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it.
Jotter324Studios 9 months ago
@Jotter324Studios --- It's not about the potential energy in HHO, it's about better utilizing the potential energy of the HC fuel. This video isn't about the practicality of using HHO on a commercial basis, it's simply about whether or not it works. The answer is that it does...
BlackDogSociety 9 months ago
@BlackDogSociety We have those already they are called octane boosters. There are thousands of fuel additives out there that help HC burn better. Regardless of whether a thing works or not it's pointless to waste energy on something that doesn't work well and that has such limited potential.
Jotter324Studios 9 months ago
@Jotter324Studios --- HHO works much better than the octane boosters on the market. Then there's the cost of those additives both monetary and environmentally, those additives are all fossil fuel based. No I think more is gained by using H2...
BlackDogSociety 9 months ago
Scientists can be wrong too. But more often their work is taken out of context and distorted people to make facts for their own unfounded principles.
Jotter324Studios 9 months ago
@Jotter324Studios --- Read the study, it clearly states that adding H2/O2 gas can save fuel. Nothing has been taken out of context. What you fail to get about these systems is that they do not change physics. Adding H2/O2 gas changes the chemical composition of the fuel allowing for a leaner operating range without losing power. No new energy is created, energy is still lost in the process....
BlackDogSociety 9 months ago
@BlackDogSociety simple science. There are 2 hydrogen's in and H2 molecule. There are 20 Hydrogen's in a gasoline molecule. I will admit that adding oxygen to a any combustible mixture will increase burn. But the increased BTU's from adding a trivial amount of Hydrogen and Oxygen is almost laughable compared to the potential energy of gasoline or desial for that matter. If you want to do something really great figure out how to make an internal combustion engine 70% efficient instead of 25%
Jotter324Studios 9 months ago
@Jotter324Studios --- As far as making the ICE more efficient that's where the gains come from. This study, as well as others, shows gains in BTE are seen by adding relatively small amount of H2/O2 gas. Of course it's nowhere near 70% but it is more efficient nonetheless...
BlackDogSociety 9 months ago
@BlackDogSociety Heat is heat heat recovery would grant you much greater gains than adding a low potential gas to a high potential fuel.
Jotter324Studios 9 months ago
@Jotter324Studios --- True, greater gains are possible if you could harness waste heat but that is a whole other topic. As for the potential of both fuels you should watch Thunderf00t's video on high speed explosions, watch?v=65KIexy4New While it is true that HC fuels have a higher HV when compared to H2 but it's the other attribute of flame speed that becomes relevant inside the combustion chamber...
BlackDogSociety 9 months ago
.... all the words in the world won't change physics.
Jotter324Studios 9 months ago
ii think its same with supercharger..using more energy but u can get extra power becouse of pure O2 and H2. imgine if we compressed this O2 and H2 to turbo charged using 30 psi turbo it will make huge different becouse we compreesed pure O2 and H2 same like nos
nazifdaniel 9 months ago
wasn't skeptical at all, I know any combustable fuel will run a combustion engine, I build engines and have run all kinds of different fuels. I use a tiny drycell to run a small weed wacker engine, it turns a 2kilowatt permanent magnet alternator I originally made for a vertical axis turbine. Yup, ya tune up an engine it will run entirely on hho, browns gas, hydroxy.. whatever ya want to call it :-\
Me102288 9 months ago
Just read where the US government will mandate that all cars have these on them this year. The US government says that I am the only one that meets the strict government guidelines. My jam jars and stainless steel wall plates are the only ones that are US government approved. So send $500 to me today and get US government approved never buy gasoline again jam jars.
MrStevilKneivel 10 months ago
@MrStevilKneivel --- LOL, that's a good one...
BlackDogSociety 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@901Jetta How Come you can't answer this question yourself?
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@901Jetta O. K. I watched the video and you honestly believe this is supposed to impress me.
18.6 Liters = 4.913 Gallons
100 Kilometers = 62.134 Miles
62.134 Miles divided by 4.913 Gallons = 12.64 Miles to the Gallon
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@901Jetta
If what you are saying was true then when he injected the HHO into the cylinder and then proceeded to adjust the air to fuel mixture ratio adjusting screw, he would have been increasing the amount of gasoline consumed per minute not decreasing it.
Think About It
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- FYI the adjustment screw works both ways, Zero stated he leaned out the mix...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
If the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke does not change how can the MPG improve?
On the other hand if the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke is reduced them and only then does the MPG improve.
So the bottom line is it is the act of reducing the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke that increases the MPG not injecting H2/O2.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
Watch this video from popular mechanics on a modified and optimized Hydrogen-Powered Turbo Prius.
Note
That he mentions that even with the turbocharger the engine now puts out 10 percent less horsepower than on the original naturally aspirated gas engine, also look at the major reduction in driving range.
watch?v=4nL4iuE2Fqo
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- First off this video series is about the theory that adding H2/O2 gas (aka HHO) made on-board with the HC fuel can improve MPG. The study shows it can improve MPG. The video of the Prius does not prove or even suggest that this theory is in error. Secondly, similar test were done with gasoline engines with similar positive results. It works much better in diesel fuel engines but it still can work with gasoline engines.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety If the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke does not change how can the MPG improve?.
On the other hand if the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke is reduced them and only then does the MPG improve.
So the bottom line is it is the act of reducing the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke that increases the MPG not injecting H2/O2.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- "If the amount of diesel fuel injected into the cylinder per power stroke does not change how can the MPG improve?." By a better thermal convergence giving more HP. More HP leads to more MPG. I've done it with my CAI mod. But. the amount of the diesel fuel injected did change, read the study. The act of adding HHO allows for the reduction of diesel fuel with no reduction in the output HP, in fact it gave a gain in HP using less fuel.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety "More HP leads to more MPG"
Just listen to yourself this is a completely illogical statement.
It is only the amount of fuel that enters the cylinder per power stroke that determines the MPG that's it there is no exception to this rule.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp -- No, it's not. When you increase the TE of the burn you increase the HP. When HP increases in normal driving conditions the need to accelerate is reduce and more MPG is the result. So simply adding HHO can influence MPG with no other mods. In my case using my CAI mod I reduced the pumping losses to improve my HP and I was able to post an average MPG gain.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety I am sorry but you have absolutely no tangible scientific evidence to backup that statement.
When you inject HHO into the cylinder the oxygen sensor responds by telling the ECU to reduce the amount of fuel injected into the engine, this is where the improved MPG comes from, not from an improved flame speed.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- On the contrary, the DOE and NASA, among others, have stated an increased flame speed improves fuel efficiency. That is a scientifically proven fact. The study referenced in this video shows that HHO can have the same effect as what was seen by NASA and the DOE... BTW and increase in O2 read by the O2 sensor tells the ECU that more fuel is needed, not the other way around as you state here...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety Once again you are wrong when you inject HHO into the cylinder the oxygen sensor registers a richer mixture from the hydrogen and this is what causes of the ECU to REDUCE the amount of fuel injected into the engine.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
Comment removed
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety When ZeroFossilFuel did his run time test, for the engine to run properly with HHO injected he had to lean out the carburetor air to fuel mixture ratio adjusting screw, he clearly states this in his video. This is real world evidence that injecting hydrogen into a gasoline engine causes the engine to run the rich not lean.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- You need to broaden your scope on things and look up how the O2 sensor works. I do believe you are confused. No big deal really we all make mistakes, in this case I think you are mistaken...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety The key points of the video showing the hydrogen powered Prius is that a ICE running exclusively on hydrogen produces less horsepower than the same engine running on gasoline.
This is proof positive that hydrogen has less energy or you could say BTU potential than gasoline.
So if you inject HHO and into a gasoline engine it is not going to increase horsepower. It will In fact lean out the air to fuel ratio and would cause a decrease in horsepower output.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- No it is not 'proof positive'. You have a limited understanding of Hydrogen's potential when mixed with hydrocarbon fuels. Read the data in the stated peer-reviewed document...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety You just admitted that ZeroFossilFuel leaned out the mixture.
So this would cause a reduction in gasoline consumption, because when you adjust the screw for a lean mixture you decrease the amount of gasoline going into the cylinder. So the MPG increased from doing this not from adding HHO.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- You are an idiot. Of course he leaned out the fuel mixture. That is how you can save fuel using HHO. It's a scientifically proven FACT that H2 added to HC fuel allows for leaner operation without losing any HP. You can say what you will, the bottom line is you can save fuel using HHO...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety I totally disagree there has been no laboratory controlled testing of a gasoline engine using HHO that demonstrates an increase in MPG. Quite the contrary the few laboratory controlled tests that has been conducted has shown just the opposite. If you have a video showing a gasoline powered car being tested under laboratory controlled conditions then by all means please present this evidence now.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp - Do you then agree that HHO does work for diesel engines?
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety No I do not believe that HHO improves MPG on diesel engines. The tests presented in this video is invalid because the power source for the HHO production was external not from the diesel engine itself.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety This experiment was not a closed loop system, consuming 7.5Kw's from the power grid to make the HHO to inject into a an internal combustion engine is not a practical demonstration of this technology.
But more importantly it was not conducted on a gasoline engine this test was done on diesel engines.
How many people drive diesel powered cars? This study proves nothing about using HHO with gasoline powered automobiles.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp -- They used an external power source as a matter of control. This is a proper procedure when you are testing the limits of a theory. They may have used the amount of energy you claimed with the upper limits of the test but the data in figs 2, 3, and 6 show gains in TE and MPG at a much lower power use. There is also publications by the DOT that refers to other test using HHO where gains were documented in diesel engines. The biggest problem you have is with acceptance...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety OK enough with the vague references to the DOT.
Point me toward the actual DOT documents. If you cannot provide me with a link to these documents then at least give me the name of the article and the year it was published. Otherwise stop mentioning references that you cannot produce.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- I've posted this so many times already, here it is again:
The FMCSA division of the DOT published this doc, tinyurl com / DOT-doc. Read section 1.2.3 - "Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use..." Oh and a Hydrogen Injection system is defined as an electrolysis unit in a previous statement...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety Your tiny URL link does not work so I went to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
web site and did a search on hydrogen injection and electrolysis unit and got zero results.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety The FMCSA division of the DOT may have published this paper but they did not do the test, the
ETV Canada, Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. June 2005. Hydrogen Fuel Injection System Technology Fact Sheet for Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd. Available at: w w w etvcanada com / graduates asp. Accessed December 22, 2006. Canadian Hydrogen Energy Company Ltd
did the testing and without the original data this information is worthless.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- The fact remains that a division of the US government saw fit to make regulations regarding the safe use of on-demand H2 injection systems as a method of saving fuel. Your opinion is just that, an opinion...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety Yes you are right the U.S. government excepted this single Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system written by a company that manufactures electrolyzers in Canada, that for some unexplained reason no longer has this study available for public review. The only evidence that this document ever existed is a vague description of it.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp -- Really, I found the document here: tinyurl com / 4ol9lto and here: tinyurl com / 4gjyrq7 Amazing what you can find if you keep an open mind...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety OK I can now verify that this test is invalid. The reason is very simple they used a 1992 60 series Detroit Diesel the company Detroit diesel did not introduce their first electronically controlled diesel engine until 1993. I can guarantee you if this test was repeated on a electronically controlled diesel engine there would be no measurable improvement. Also the claimed 4 percent improvement would not even occur in the real world due to content variable load conditions.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- More B/S denial on your part. This was testing done by an accredited lab and the findings are published in a document from the DOT. Who are you to question that? Have you done such tests? Can you offer anything other than conjecture?
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- Oh and you do realize that the engine in the peer-reviewed study mentioned in this video was electronically controlled and they posted gains. I think that trumps your theory...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety No it certainly does not the power source for the electrolyzer was not the diesel engine alternator.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety This is not the actual test study report it is only a summary of that report published by the Canadian government.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
@ke4uyp --- "This is not the actual test study report it is only a summary of that report published by the Canadian government" Based on supporting tests by a CEE and CARB testing facility. Again this trumps your conjecture. "No it certainly does not the power source for the electrolyzer was not the diesel engine alternator." You do know that a famous naysayer says this was the proper way to test these units, don't you? watch?v=JYq511CCSRQ
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
This experiment was not a closed loop system, consuming 7.5Kw's from the power grid to make the HHO to inject into a an internal combustion engine is not a practical demonstration of this technology. But more importantly it was not conducted on a gasoline engine this test was done on diesel engines.
How many people drive diesel powered cars? This study proves nothing about using HHO with gasoline powered automobiles.
ke4uyp 1 year ago
Really intresting I love hydrogen a I would like in britan to develope the hydrogen car because the only emition is water very good video
DominicCopeland 1 year ago
@SuperSoylent --- You know they did that as a matter of control. They also factor that in when they concluded that adding H2/O2 gas gave a savings in fuel. This procedure was exactly what a famous naysayer says is needed, watch this video....
watch?v=JYq511CCSRQ
Then look up old comments where I point out a document from a division of the DOT and how they claim HHO works. But don't stop there, look up Ronn Motors testing in Volvo big rigs. Real world tests that back up the claims in the paper
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@SuperSoylent --- LOL, Go for it big boy...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@SuperSoylent -- Proof has been given, see the peer-reviewed study this video is about for starters. You are however claiming that I as well as many other HHO'ers are snake oil salesmen, prove that claim, can you?
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@SuperSoylent -- Ok then have you seen the postive data? How do you explain it? Could it be that the application of basic physics is in error? Could it be that the answer isn't about gaining energy? Could the answer be that H2 added to HC fuels allows you to waste less fuel? You seem to think that all of us HHO believers think we are creating energy where none exsisted before, that is not what is happening. Please explain exactly why adding HHO violates any law of nature?
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
blah blah alternator blah blah do this cant that.....
science science science... according to science it doesnt work, well how about the science doesnt work? science, physics and all that have been altered befored well not the laws have changed before its not the a new thing, so if a person claims this,,, then meet him in person, test it the generator out and see for yourself! until then STFU
TheCameoAfro1 1 year ago
@SuperSoylent -- Nope, you are wrong, I have looked at the science behind it that's why I know it can work. Without a doubt H2 added to HC fuel changes how the fuel burns, it always has and it always will. The only question is can this change overcome the losses involved in making H2 on-demand from water. The answer is Yes it can. It really doesn’t matter that some test show otherwise, the important factor here are the test that prove it does. Quit focusing only on the negative...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@SuperSoylent --- There is where the misunderstanding begins. Using H2 on-demand isn't creating energy, it's recovering energy that once was lost. H2 added to HC fuel has been shown to increase the lean burn range of the fuel while increasing it's TE. So you get more power out of the burn using less fuel. This does come at a cost but the increase TE offsets the converting losses. The net result is a fuel savings. FYI, I don't sell these units, I'm just a researcher who mirrored this video.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
"In order to simplify the setup, the
H2/O2 mixture was generated using 24 V external power supply.
But in reality it will be produced from the battery/alternator
arrangement of the engine."
So this only proves that H2/O2 will increase the engine economy with an EXTERNAL power source added. Until you can create the H2/O2 on demand and still show improvement, you have proven nothing. Yes, hydrogen added to the air intake will add to the fuel intake. Tell me when you get there. Until then...
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Silly rabbit, don't you know that they included the load required in their computations when they concluded that H2/O2 gas made on-demand improves fuel economy? Did you also know that a dept. of the DOT published guidelines for using H2 in commercial vehicles that states using H2 from on-board electrolysis units as a supplement was shown to save fuel? Again show me why it can’t work, can you?
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety First, the DOT is the Department of Transportation. So to say the department of the DOT is just plain silly now isn't it.
Second, "states using H2 from on-board electrolysis units as a supplement was shown to save fuel?"
Sources please!
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Making posts in 500 characters sometimes requires the use of acronyms, quit your bitching. The FMCSA division of the DOT published this doc, tinyurl com / DOT-doc. Read section 1.2.3 - "Limited laboratory testing of a hydrogen injection system installed on an older diesel truck engine operated at a series of constant speeds showed a 4 percent reduction in fuel use..." Oh and a Hydrogen Injection system is defined as an electrolysis unit in a previous statement...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety You missed my point on the DOT statement. I know what it means. I was commenting on your use of it in the sentence which then read, the department of the department of transportation. My comment was on the redundancy you are using. I also saw that in the tests with the extremal power source, it states the only H2 was injected, not H2/O2. That kind of negates the on demand system from your experiments. Plus, where is the double blind study? What outside observer was used?
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Oh I see the problem, you just can't read. I said A dept of the DOT, the FMCSA is A dept. of the DOT. And no, read the whole section of the DOT doc as well as section 1.5. H2 and O2 made on-board from the electrolysis of water gave a 4% reduction in fuel use. You are not one of those comment pickers who pick apart sentences and use them to spin the topic are you? Sad, truly sad....
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety Well, with all your ad hominid attacks and dancing around the points I make, I think I'm done wasting my time with you. Until you can make the test legitimate and done completely, not just "kinda the same," you have still proven nothing. You need to try much harder. And like I said, if this is proof, go get your Nobel prize and the James Randi money! Seriously, if you don't, then you are admitting that you have not yet proven anything.
I stand by my claim, you didn't prove it.
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- What points did you make? As I said this is not MY proof, I cannot do those things. I can however report on proof when I find it and I've done that.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety It's not proof that on-demand HHO will work. Only proof that hydrogen will increase mileage. You are making the link and this paper is hardly scientific. It is missing some crucial work that still needs to be done to back its assertions.
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief I also would like to add that the tests done with an external power source do not take into account the losses experienced with the conversions in energy. For on-demand use, you need to covert chemical energy to mechanical, to electrical, to chemical, back to electrical, back to chemical and then use that chemical to produce mechanical energy one last time. Every time you convert energy, there are losses. Heat is a loss, a big one. This will not work, sorry, but true.
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- READ THE WHOLE PAPER... They accounted for the losses. They took the energy required to get the H2/O2 gas added in the energy value of the resulting H2 then lean out the diesel by that amount. The results were an increase in BTE as well as a savings in fuel usage. In short they used less fuel and got more power out, including the converting losses. And no this is not free energy, the gains come from a better energy convergence of the HC fuel.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- As far as them using an external power source, this is exactly what was recommended by your friend Desertphile...
watch?v=JYq511CCSRQ
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety You make a lot of assumptions. Although I do know who Desertphile is, I wouldn't call him my friend. In fact, I don't remember even commenting on one of his videos. This is yet another Fallacy you are presenting. The tests do not seem to be very scientific to me. Like I said, when you do the test as a complete setup and can repeat the test for through unbiased third parties, then talk to me.
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Well when I see DP as your 10th sub and read your rhetoric it’s an easy correlation to make. While your opinion is noted I think I’ll go with the peer-reviewed data. BTW there are other tests like the ones done by Ronn Motors that posted gains of 22% in Volvo big rigs…
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
If i was more of a scumbag i could make lots of money off HHO, too bad i would rather be poor.
bmays002 1 year ago
@bmays002 --- LOL, so instead you troll videos on Youtube... [eye roll]
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
Take your proof and go get your Nobel Prize! If you have proof, you get the prize! When do you expect any car companies to solicit you for your device? I suspect that they would pay millions for this! Way to go!
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Sorry, it's not MY proof, it was published by someone else in a peer-reviewed scientific journal none the less...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety That is what these nay say's don't understand. It is not new technology, you cannot patent it. You can build it and you can use it.
Great work ! ! ! I commend you.
xtaxplayer 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety Do you truly believe that by using electricity from the engine, you can produce enough HHO to more than make up the difference? If you can do that, then demonstrate it. Otherwise, your video means nothing. The idea of getting this gas through electrolysis is old news, hundreds of years old. If it was possible, it would already be in your car. Until someone can prove that they can do it, I'll stay unimpressed.
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Well you can stay a in-stunned-disbelief, it make no difference to me. FYI the report shows that in their 4.0 L diesel engine changes in BTE started at about 3 LPM. So yes, you can produce enough HHO to make a difference. BTW your "If it was possible, it would already be" logic is lame, why do you think we still have research scientists????
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety "So yes, you can produce enough HHO to make a difference" WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? If you can do this, then go get your Nobel Prize! Talk to James Randi, he's got a million dollars waiting just for you! If you do not apply for Randi's million dollar challenge, that only proves you're a failure. You damn well rest assured that if i had this proof you claim to have, I'd be getting my millions and awards.
BTW the name of my account has nothing to do with HHO.
InStunnedDisbelief 1 year ago
@InStunnedDisbelief --- Proof is in the peer reviewed published data. You want me to pass someone else's work off as mine? The data shows gains in TE starting a 3 LPM for the 4.0 litter engine used in the test. For confirmation of this fact look at fig. 2, 3, and 6 of the published study. Read the study, it contains all the proof I need know that this works. Show me actual data the proves it doesn't work, can you?
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
Dude your stuff is boring keep it simple we want to know MPG before and after done. Does it improve your mileage that all we want to know. I so far is not imprested with HHO.
I have one installed on my ‘99 Nissan Frontier with and EEFI.
The only thing I do notice is when I put my thumb over the HHO hose so that will build pressure and let go. It does make the idle go up. wow
Now if we could store the HHO as we decelerate and let it go as we accelerate we might have some thing
wootencarmona 1 year ago
@wootencarmona --- What kind of test have you done other than the thumb over the hose test? Some people have done test on their vehicles and found little to no positive results while others have shown positive MPG gains. This video series is about the theory that HHO changes the way Hydrocarbon fuels burn and that can save fuel and reduce emissions. This theory has been lab tested and the results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Adding HHO can save fuel and reduce emissions.
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@TheGreenPowerGuy --- First things first, HHO has been scientifically proven to improve fuel efficiency, see the peer-reviewed study this video links to. It shows that HHO makes the engine more efficient by changing the burn characteristics of the fossil fuel releasing more usable power from the burn. Yes there are losses involved at the alternator but the gains in BTE out weigh them. About the device you are pushing, send me one and I'll test it. Send me a PM if you are interested...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
you had me until the external 24 volts..........
no one wants to do the math............
all that testing doesnot count.......
people only believe what they see.......most people can not see math
irondmax 1 year ago
I made a simple HODG for my lawn mower....it works and not only does it work, one tank of gas runs the mower 2 hours longer with the HODG engaged
DustyLions 1 year ago
The study he may be citing (Elsevier: Effect of H2/O2 - Fuel 89 (2010) 378383) showed a whopping increase of 31KW on a diesel engine of 250KW output... at a cost of 28KW of input to the cell and a cost of $1000s for the cells. Sorry, 3% is not impressive since the same engine properly tuned can achieve more than 40KW of increase for $100s in labor at a good garage.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
@RyuDarragh --- Ah, sorry but no it doesn't. Read it again...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
That's actually not as good as standard gains from water injection alone (Yes, its benefits vary greatly from one engine to another), which is the secondary effect of HHO generation. And yes proper injection timing would probably compensate for the net effect of the HHO injection.
Can everyone please stop referring to 'H2 + O2 as HHO? You are damaging the sanity of chemists around the globe, and there is nothing at all special about the product of water electrolysis other than it being wet.
mcskifter 1 year ago
@mcskifter --- "Can everyone please stop referring to 'H2 + O2 as HHO?" Just think of HHO as the trade name for the mix of H2 and O2 gases. Just like syngas is the mix of H2 and CO gases, table salt is sodium chloride, baking soda is sodium bicarbonate, and lye is sodium or potassium hydroxide...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety *sigh* You are right. It's mostly the bizarre claims that HHO is some magical hyrdoxy plasma or something with amazing properties nobody has ever seen before, that get me pissed off.
Part of your list there (table salt, lye) I can easily accept because they were in use before their elemental constituents were identified. I have to wonder though, if we are truly supporting the advancement of the species by accepting idiotic nomenclature. I'll eventually get over it, thanks.
mcskifter 1 year ago
Australian Study part 1
Published by Elsevier. Progressive Librarians Guild Calls for Elsevier to End Corrupt Publishing Practices. Merck paid Elsevier to promote Vioxx in a series of fake journals, called the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, to appear as a legitimate, scholarly peer reviewed medical journal. Vioxx can induce heart attacks.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
Australian Study part 2
Elsevier even apologized, admitting wrong doing.
This type of corporate PR packaged and distributed as scientific research must be denounced as deceptive, destructive and dangerous.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
Australian Study part 3
From this article, we learn that fake journals can be bought from the source that Smack quotes from, to prove that HHO increases miles per gallon. Only from a Bozo like Smack can we expect bought and paid for fake studies.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EnergySupply2008 I have never seen any test results from YOU or anyone else that proves HHO does not work.
H2Truckers 1 year ago
@EnergySupply2008 --- Hmmmm... So a big money corp paid for a series of published articles from a publishing juggernaut. We must ask ourselves; a)Are the big money corps for or against HHO? b) Elsevier published over 1300 journals are all of them bought? c) Elsevier was caught with their hand in the cookie jar already, do we really think a topic like HHO could be valuable enough for them to risk another scandal over, especially considering the money is on the other side of the results
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@EnergySupply2008 -- and d) do we have data from another source to judge their findings by? Answers:
a) Big money is against HHO.
b) Of course all of their journals are not faked
c) If you'd would have been caught selling out would you do it again for something like HHO, I think not
d) Yes, the DOT has a published document that states in limited lab testing gains are possible. Also there are other studies form other countries that show similar results.
So what else you got...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@mcskifter: Good point bringing up H2O injection. For a proper study, there should have been tests comparing HHO, H2O, H2 and O2 seperately with a range of injection percentages.
But, sorry to say, HHO is here to stay and the chemists of the world can go sob in the corner. It's used by millions to refer to H2/O2, or Browns Gas, and is used by commercial manufacturers of HHO machines for welding and such.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
Good luck selling your snake oil.
worldlystone 1 year ago
good luck selling your LIE!
H2Truckers 1 year ago
"Proper 2/3rd's ratio"
Umm.. what? There is no 2/3rds ratio involved in this experiment.
I can only imagine you think they're talking about using water, or h2o in this experiment, when they're actually using hydrogen peroxide, or h2o2?
Oh well, interesting food for thought but since I don't think buying enough hydrogen peroxide to make this work is going to be convenient, I'll wait for an industry adaptation of the technology.
Jermbot15 1 year ago
@Jermbot15 ---- Ah, they did use water not hydrogen peroxide, or h2o2, can't you read??? They electrolyzed water and split into H2/O2 gas. Come back when you learn to read...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
Darn, still no proof hho works. How much longer must we wait?
GroundSloth1 2 years ago
@GroundSloth1 --- "How much longer must we wait?" I guess as long as it takes for you to believe what you read, assuming you even read the report. Look up Ronn Motors and their H2GO system. They have posted a 20%+ gain in fuel economy in field testing with Volvo big rig diesel trucks... You can choose to believe the people who say it's impossible or you can look at the facts that shows it works. The choice is yours...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
I have seen nothing that proves Ronn motors got 20 percent. Where are the EPA certified tests?
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Look harder...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety
Australian study supposed fuel savings at 19, 22, 28 KW load.
First page says 15.07% 15.16% 14.96%
Last page says 7.3% 8.1% 4.8%
Those Australians cannot even keep their lies straight and BlackDogSociety does not know how to read and interpret lies. Ronn Motors has not had their claims tested by the EPA, you know, that agency that puts the MPG stickers on vehicles.
All BDS does is lie. He knows no other method of communication.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
@EnergySupply2008 - Read the entire report and stop taking things out of context. The first page is the over-all savings factoring in the amount of fuel that was replaced by HHO, the last page is the gains related to the increases in BTE only. Quote,
Page 6 "The brake specific fuel consumption of the engine
reduced by 7.3%, 8.1%, and 4.8%":
Page 4 "By inducting H2/O2 into the diesel engine the maximum fuel savings were recorded as approximately 15% (15.07%, 15.16%, and 14.96%..."
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@BlackDogSociety - The Australian study used a Dwyer RMC air flow meter to measure the HHO flow. At 0 Celsius at sea level. air has a density of 1.2 grams per liter. Hydrogen 0.08988 g/L and oxygen 1.429 g/L. So, HHO = 0.08988 + 0.08988 + 1.429 divided by 3 = 0.53625 g/L. Because the density of air is 2.24 times greater than HHO, they were actually feeding 2.24 times more HHO than they thought. This throws off all their energy calculations. FLAWED study = BULLSHIT study.
EnergySupply2008 1 year ago
@EnergySupply2008 --- Prove to us that their meter wasn't calibrated for HHO, can you? In fact the Epoch EP-500 comes with a built in flow meter that is calibrated for HHO, you don't know what you are talking about. Your speculative BULLSHIT is as stupid as your backwards assumptive BTU math. Build it, test it under lab conditions, and have your results published, then you can say for sure their energy calculations are off...
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago
@coasterpro --- But the article does explain how the power consumption is compensated, "The total rate of fuel consumption is calculated as the sum of diesel, the diesel equivalent flow rate of hydrogen and the diesel equivalent energy needed to produce H2/O2 mixture." Also it gives you the LPM rates and the percentages of diesel energy equivalent for each amount of HHO used. It even tells you the brand name of the HHO generator used. You have more than enough information to use.
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
I must concede that point as I thought you were referring to a different study, but you seem to have lost the line 2 down from that. "The decrease in the total fuel consumption is due to the better combustion of the formed mixture owing to higherflame speed of hydrogen and overall leaner mixture (as shown later)."
the key thing I want to point out is the line overall leaner mixture. this means that the study falls into the error that a lot of others do.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
the leaner fuel mixture lead to a loss of power and an increase in the damage on the car. I would also like to point out where it says NOx emissions where increased. ". . .whereas the NOx emission increased."
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
@Don -- Sorry, wrong again. A lean mix with HHO gave an increase in BHP. This is the same result NASA got in the 70's when they added H2 to a gasoline engine. H2 extends the lean burn range allowing for a safe lean operation without engine damage. The added HP comes from an increase in TE, meaning more power is used instead of being wasted in the exhaust. HHO works if done correctly...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
and in the 70's that wasn't true and now that's not true. if you insist to site experiments read and more importantly understand the full paper first.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
@don -- WTF? Adding H2 gave NASA a better TE and adding HHO gave Dr. Bari a similar increase in TE. I've read the full reports, have you?
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
Bari used wall electricity, where the losses in generating the eletricity are at the power plant, NOT with the on board generation of eletricity. Using a 32% efficient engine to power a 50-62 percent efficient altenator, the results would have been a loss.
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
@ES2008 --- Damn son can't you do math correctly? I've told you this many times an alternator uses less than 2% of the energy from the gasoline or in this case diesel, of that energy (the < 2%) it wastes 38% -50%. In the Australian study they used a load for the HHO system that was 4.84% of the desiel and got a 15.07% gain @ 19 KW load. I can't help it if you can't understand simple math. There you go again spewing your crap...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
now are you going to continue to chase your tail or are we done here.
DonHoraldo 2 years ago
@Don --- Chasing my tail? You come here spouting your propaganda with no facts or tests to back it up. If you asked me you are chasing your tail, not the other way around...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
Why was Smack's Youtube account suspended?
EnergySupply2008 2 years ago
>> This is the same result NASA got
Sorry, show me the experiment where NASA used H2 produced from the engine's own power? Yeah, didn't think so.
The NASA experiment used the engine's heat and a Methanol reformer to extract H2 from an external tank of Methanol. The gas as mixed with the engine's normal air/fuel mixture in the carburetor.
NASA is far form the only people to have experimented with H2 injection, but in every case an external tank was used because that's the ONLY way it works.
coasterpro 2 years ago
@coasterpro --- How is H2 from NASA test different from H2 from electrolysis? Other than how it was created it's not. So since H2 extends the lean burn range of HC fuels it works from electrolysis too. Oh and sorry but MIT did a on-board H2 generation device so NASA isn't the only one. But again, built one, test it and have your results published by a peer reviewed scientific group...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
// How is H2 from NASA test different from H2 from electrolysis?
*sigh*
Methanol is a form of stored energy, where as water is not.
In the case of the Methanol very little energy is required to release the energy already stored in the liquid, which is why they can get away with using the waste heat of the engine.
In the case of water 100% of the energy stored in the form of HHO via electrolysis has to come from the engine itself, and you can never regain that energy in any form.
coasterpro 2 years ago
@coasterpro --- As I said the only difference is how the H2 is liberated... Although some would argue that water isn't a form of stored energy...
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
// MIT did a on-board H2 generation device
And they were using on-board electrolysis or an external fuel tank as in the NASA experiment?
coasterpro 2 years ago
@coasterpro--- No MIT used a electrically generated plasma to pre-burn part of teh gasoline releasing H2 in the process. They then lean out the remaining gasoline and burned it with the liberated H2. This allows for higher compression ratios and leaner burn while increasing HP. It was speculated that a 50% gain in MPG was possible. ArvinMeritor funded or bought the product. See tinyurl com / 9xoqa
BlackDogSociety 2 years ago
@BlackDogSociety "It was speculated that a 50% gain in MPG was possible."
great you can't even read the scientific paper that you yourself provided.
"However, adding H2/O2 beyond 5% does not have significant effect in enhancing the engine performance"
justintempler 1 year ago
@justintempler --- Talk about not being able to read... The MIT Plasmatron was speculated to give a 50% increase, not HHO. Read the damn link provided... Also that added HHO (H2/O2) added under the 5% from the study in this video gave them a 15% increase in fuel economy, you seem to have missed that point too... READ THE WHOLE REPORT....
BlackDogSociety 1 year ago