The Dangling Carrot

[1973dodger]

Let me first say, this thread may anger or offend some, however, it is not my intention to doubt the possiblities of how hho can effect the performance and mpg of our vehicles or to discourage anyone from trying. I've been at this electrolosis experimenting for a several months now, and consider myself reasonably well read and decently experienced in trying various cell configurations. I certainly do not consider myself the foremost authority in this forum, for there are many in this forum, who have been at this a lot longer than myself and have much more education in the field of electronics and electrolosis than myself. But I do consider myself to be reasonably intelligent and skilled. But the ability to make enough hho efficiently(goal; 6lpm @ 40-50 amps or less) to assist my 03 Dodge Ram Cummins has eluded me to date. It appears to me, in brute force electrolosis, that one can only expect to achieve 1 lpm at 13 to 22 amps using a standard 12 to 14 volt power source. To date the best I have been able to achieve is 1 lpm at 16.7 amps using a 13.5 power source, after trying countless configurations, which at 6 lpm would amount to 100 amps or over 1300 watts.

Sure I have read and watched video of people who claim to make anywhere from 6 to 45 liters per minute with less than 30 amps. Are these claims bogus or are they the "dangling carrot" held before us which is just beyond our reach? Or perhaps, they are just beyond what us common folk can understand or have the education to comprehend. I am fine with that, I understand my limitations in the field of electronics and in a particular feild of education, but it appears to me, there are many more educated than myself, that have not got a grasp of the efficiency required to achieve these seemingly lofty expectations. Sure the likes of Boyce, Meyers, and Dingle claims are well documented,(yet not completely explained) but I am not even aiming that high.

So my challenge to all who read this thread is; who out there has achieved or has personally witnessed an efficiency of better than 1 lpm @ 16 or better amps using a standard 12 to 14 power source, or perhaps a better way to put it is; 1000ml/m at 216 watts or less, regardless of voltage. If you do meet this challenge, I ask you to not use youtube as your reference unless you have personally witnessed this or it is your own experiment you document. You see I, like you, have already seen most of the claims or have read of them from some obscure person on youtube or on the internet. What I am after here is some real life person who has experienced a high effiency production or who has witnessed it and can tell us all what makes it tick. If you have done it and it is beyond my understanding, fine, I'll move on to other priorities in my life and say I tried my best, perhaps there are some who read this thread it can help. If it is some piece of information which you could help me to understand, I am able and willing to learn.

I'll end this thread by saying, I do believe it can be done or else I would have given up some time ago and a few thousand of dollars ago. However, I find myself at a crossroads with few ideas left to try.

Sincerely,

1973dodger

[BoyntonStu]

A well written and logical request.

What you are asking for should stand up in court, not on Youtube!

I would also like to see proof.

OTOH Some folks with 1 LPM claim that their 03 Dodge Ram Cummings or equivalent have gained significant MPG.

Therefore, I offer them another carrot that demonstrates their gains.

Here's a claim from another forum that I find fairly believable:

"below is details of the 2 ford / mazda's that we run

we drove a mazda t3500 from perth to sunshine coast basicly empty >500kgs fuel cost $1930
trip took 3 days each way 4 cyl direct injection diesal with a 5 speed box behind body is a 4m long x 2,2m wide x 2,4 m high pantech

return trip with a smack attack added .... 12 volt 10 a cold 18a hot ...... fuel cost $1125 truck returned to perth loaded with 3500kg plus and no black smoke
the only mods done to truck whilst it was in my shop fiberglass wind scoop was replaced with an alloy propellor plate unit and it has 450 led lights fitted to it inc starburst on scoop invisable brake tail and indicators on read and a new alloy propellor plate step added to the rear ( lights look chrome when off red / amber when on ... its a bling thing )
return trip cruise was as coming on west to east trip 95 kmh but due to load no accurate fuel or speed/power testing done

booster did exactly as i said it would do , reduce fuel bill and in my mind as truck maintained cruise speed when full it also gained some power
no black smoke was detected in the air but it had a stack and i saw no reason to climb up

my mazda T4100 has a twinpack smackattack unit fitted running 10a cold 18amps hot @ 24volt i cruise at 120kmh all day loaded or not she is a stretched banana back tow truck i notice little differance between 1 tonne on the back or max legal of 4600KG on the back and as you all know we would never run with an overload
with 5t on the back and 3 t on the trailer i felt the hills a bit but 4 low was as far as i had to drop her too and i never went slower than 75 kmh on the highway and my cruise was 110 - 120 kmh......


Do you find this story reasonable?

BoyntonStu

[JojoJaro]

But the ability to make enough hho efficiently(goal; 6lpm @ 40-50 amps or less) to assist my 03 Dodge Ram Cummins has eluded me to date. It appears to me, in brute force electrolosis, that one can only expect to achieve 1 lpm at 13 to 22 amps using a standard 12 to 14 volt power source. To date the best I have been able to achieve is 1 lpm at 16.7 amps using a 13.5 power source, after trying countless configurations, which at 6 lpm would amount to 100 amps or over 1300 watts.



The Jaxom cell appears to have broken this efficiency level.

[bigapple]

A well written and logical request.

What you are asking for should stand up in court, not on Youtube!

I would also like to see proof.

OTOH Some folks with 1 LPM claim that their 03 Dodge Ram Cummings or equivalent have gained significant MPG.

Therefore, I offer them another carrot that demonstrates their gains.

Here's a claim from another forum that I find fairly believable:

"below is details of the 2 ford / mazda's that we run

we drove a mazda t3500 from perth to sunshine coast basicly empty >500kgs fuel cost $1930
trip took 3 days each way 4 cyl direct injection diesal with a 5 speed box behind body is a 4m long x 2,2m wide x 2,4 m high pantech

return trip with a smack attack added .... 12 volt 10 a cold 18a hot ...... fuel cost $1125 truck returned to perth loaded with 3500kg plus and no black smoke
the only mods done to truck whilst it was in my shop fiberglass wind scoop was replaced with an alloy propellor plate unit and it has 450 led lights fitted to it inc starburst on scoop invisable brake tail and indicators on read and a new alloy propellor plate step added to the rear ( lights look chrome when off red / amber when on ... its a bling thing )
return trip cruise was as coming on west to east trip 95 kmh but due to load no accurate fuel or speed/power testing done

booster did exactly as i said it would do , reduce fuel bill and in my mind as truck maintained cruise speed when full it also gained some power
no black smoke was detected in the air but it had a stack and i saw no reason to climb up

my mazda T4100 has a twinpack smackattack unit fitted running 10a cold 18amps hot @ 24volt i cruise at 120kmh all day loaded or not she is a stretched banana back tow truck i notice little differance between 1 tonne on the back or max legal of 4600KG on the back and as you all know we would never run with an overload
with 5t on the back and 3 t on the trailer i felt the hills a bit but 4 low was as far as i had to drop her too and i never went slower than 75 kmh on the highway and my cruise was 110 - 120 kmh......


Do you find this story reasonable?

BoyntonStu

well i dont have enough personal experience to personally say whether or not its legit, but i do know that it takes alot to get black smoke to go away. the black smoke is caused by sulfur in standard diesel fuel. even with my friends f450 who runs biodiesel 85% of the time, he still gets black smoke from old diesel fuel burning. the story might be a bit bogus

ive heard of some people using a standard audio subwoofer amplifier to run higher currents thru an electrolyzer. thoughts anyone?

[1973dodger]

Boynton Stu,

I find it hard to believe, 1 lpm would ever do anything on an engine such as mine. It have tried 2 lpm with a double smacks booster pulling 36 amps and noticed no improvement. I believe the hho made would be so diluted by the time it reached the intake valve, it would have no effect on combustion.

I have asked this question more than a couple of times on this forum, and have had no replies to date. The question is; "Does it trouble any of you why the hho is only igniteable with in a couple of inches of the surface of the water in your bubbler?" Which lends one to think, either you need a higher concentration of hho introduced to the air stream or a closer injection point to the intake valve. Which, in a turbo diesel, is further complicated the amount of air a diesel sucks in, which further dilutes the hho. The other problem is being able to introduce the hho closer to the intake valve, because of the pressure side of the turbo.

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger

[BoyntonStu]

Boynton Stu,

I find it hard to believe, 1 lpm would ever do anything on an engine such as mine. It have tried 2 lpm with a double smacks booster pulling 36 amps and noticed no improvement. I believe the hho made would be so diluted by the time it reached the intake valve, it would have no effect on combustion.

I have asked this question more than a couple of times on this forum, and have had no replies to date. The question is; "Does it trouble any of you why the hho is only igniteable with in a couple of inches of the surface of the water in your bubbler?" Which lends one to think, either you need a higher concentration of hho introduced to the air stream or a closer injection point to the intake valve. Which, in a turbo diesel, is further complicated the amount of air a diesel sucks in, which further dilutes the hho. The other problem is being able to introduce the hho closer to the intake valve, because of the pressure side of the turbo.

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger

Dodger,

You are taking a completely correct position by being skeptical.

If I were you this is what I would do:

Join several other forums in Yahoo Groups.

I belong to Hydroxy, Watercar, and Workingwatercar.

I get many messages every day and I usually learn something useful.

Between the daily messages, the archived messages, the Files, and the Photos, you will quickly find someone who has the same or nearly the same vehicle as you.

When you contact that person who shares your problem, you can compare notes etc.

In my example of the Aussie trammer (trucker), he can be reached through one of the groups above.

His success may involve a simple thing, like where he injects, etc.

I certainly do not blame you for being skeptical.

I am also skeptical, especially about the claims that I consider to be unrealistic.

Keep us informed.

BoyntonStu

[Painless]

On the subject of the diesel HHO injection issue, how about delivering the HHO into the diesel supply line between the pump and the fuel pressure rail? A one way check valve would ensure that diesel doesn't get into your HHO system. This would also solve the pilot injection issue.

[JojoJaro]

On the subject of the diesel HHO injection issue, how about delivering the HHO into the diesel supply line between the pump and the fuel pressure rail? A one way check valve would ensure that diesel doesn't get into your HHO system. This would also solve the pilot injection issue.

Are you thinking of injecting gaseous HHO into a diesel fluid stream?

If so, that will not work.

That will screw up the pressure sensor on the CP3 pump and the common rail. Because gasses are highly compressible, your pressure will fluctuate wildly causing erratic pressure readings on your sensors, causing your CP3 pump to oscillate its pressure output wildly. This in turn will be interpreted as a sensor malfunction and you will get a christmas light display in you CEL. Your ECM will then conclude that something is really bad with your engine and will revert to 'limp' mode. There's a reason why they instruct you to purge you fuel lines from air.

Also, you can not inject between the CP3 high pressure pump and the common rail. Pressures in this area can reach 29,000 psi. I don't think any of us can fabricate a fitting that will withstand 29,000 psi. Do you know how thick the common rail is? I don't, but I know it's thick.

[JojoJaro]

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger

I don't know what to make of claims of higher than theoritical efficiency. Maybe just a measurement error, or maybe they are measuring steam. Most likely steam because many of these high producing cells do get hot.

I do know this much. Nobody has come up with a design that has been proven to produce better than theoritical efficiency. No design have been confirmed, not even Stan Meyer's resonance design. Boyce I don't think ever claimed higher than theoritical efficiency. He just has a 'big' unit so he can produce humongous amounts of gas.

No, I have not witness any of the high claims personally. But there is reason to believe some are legit. I think Jaxom is a straight shooting fellow. His design does have elements of a design that can produce big.

I think the Tero cell design is still the best.

I have gathered and researched all the parts I need to build a 24" x 6" Tero cell copy, but I just can't find the justification to spend the money. Like I mentioned, my fuel cost is $.03/gallon. At that price point, it does not seem a wise investment to build an HHO generator. I am still vacilating between the 2 choices.

[precaster1@msn.com]

Boynton Stu,

I find it hard to believe, 1 lpm would ever do anything on an engine such as mine. It have tried 2 lpm with a double smacks booster pulling 36 amps and noticed no improvement. I believe the hho made would be so diluted by the time it reached the intake valve, it would have no effect on combustion.

I have asked this question more than a couple of times on this forum, and have had no replies to date. The question is; "Does it trouble any of you why the hho is only igniteable with in a couple of inches of the surface of the water in your bubbler?" Which lends one to think, either you need a higher concentration of hho introduced to the air stream or a closer injection point to the intake valve. Which, in a turbo diesel, is further complicated the amount of air a diesel sucks in, which further dilutes the hho. The other problem is being able to introduce the hho closer to the intake valve, because of the pressure side of the turbo.

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger
Gasoline vapors also only ignite close to the liquid, diesel only when touching the flame. we're not trying to use gas, hho, and a little air but gas, air, and a little hho, such as adding propane to the air intake on a diesel. But we are creating the additive as we go.

[1973dodger]

JojoJaro,

When I first started looking into the alternative fuels, I reasearched different alternatives, such as wvo and hho and electric. I considered all to be risky to the well-being of my vehicle. I was, however, intrigued to the information out there claiming to use a substance normally associated with putting out a fire, instead of aiding in the combustion process. So I did what I normally do with most projects, and jumped in with both feet and figured what has normally gotten me thru most problems would help me in the quest for, at least, partial energy independence. Which is the willingness to do the research and stubborness to see the project thru. Sure there are many seemingly reliable researchers out there.

I am not sure as to how you are getting your fuel for 3 cents per gallon, but you have my congradulations. But I think until you get in the game, you can not help me in my proof needed to continue my research. I do respect your aforementioned credentials and do not doubt your claims to certain knowledge. For me, like you, it may come down to a business decision, although my fuel is costing me considerably more than 3 cents per gallon. So unless further insight can be given that I can understand I may have to become like you and watch from the sidelines. The money used thus far would have bought more than a few gallons of gas. My wife keeps frowning at me everytime a new package arrives for me with more parts or tools needed to continue my research. I am like everyone else here, who is sick of these greedy oil barons and countries, who just yesterday decided to cut production for fear the price of oil per barrel drop too quickly. But as I have stated, I need some proof of concept before I can go any further.

So it is either as a famous coach has once said, "it is what it is" or I am as Pop Pye has said "I Yam what I Yam", or "it is what is" because "I Yam what I Yam".

1973dodger

[hydrotinkerer]

ON an 03 cummins diesel, I do not know of anyone getting any mpg to speak of on HHO. All of the common rail diesels(Ford, Dodge, and Chev.) so far do not react to HHO of anykind. So far it doesn't matter how much HHO you produce weather from small amounts to large. I have a 98 12 valve cummins and I have played with differing amounts of gas from 500ml to 2lpm, my mpg topped out at 23-24mpg. When I turn my cell off it goes back to my base of 19mpg. ON non common rail diesels HHO works. Sorry

[Jaxom]

I have a theory on the claims of over-unity HHO output. Volumetric flow rate is not an accurate way to measure HHO production because it doesn't take into account the density of the gas. Any gas will expand when heated, and I haven't seen a genrator yet that produces HHO without also producing waste heat. As the cell warms up, the heat makes the gas expand, which translates to a higher flow rate even though the same mass of HHO is being produced. So all these people reporting a high volume of HHO output may be getting just that...high volume with very low density.

My radial cell (http://hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=571) has put out 2 liters/minute at 13V/20A on the bench. That's 7.7MMW. It was measured using a 5lpm airflow gauge and a Fluke88 meter with a clamp-on ammeter adapter. I have doubts about the accuracy of the airflow gauge with HHO, but those are the numbers that I got. I've tested it multiple times with very similar results so I know it's not an anomaly. This cell runs fairly hot, I can't run it more than an hour without the PVC housing getting soft (which starts to happen at around 160*F) so I don't consider it to be stable yet. I'm currently redesigning it to use more neutral plates and also incorporating a circulation system and remote reservoir to help unload waste heat. I'm also building a current-limiting PWM to keep the power supply steady. It's still a bench-tester....it won't make it into my Jeep until I get it running stable.

[1973dodger]

Jaxom,

Very impressive design. As best as I remember you have 3 neutral plates between your connected anode and cathode. It is possible to add one more neutral without disastereous results too you production,but adding another neutral will still result in lower production. For me, it has been a catch 22: lower the heat by dividing voltage, thusly you end up loosing valuable current to produce hho. There is a law of diminishing return, each time the voltage is divided. I would leave the design you have alone and deal with the heat thru an active cooling system. I'm not referring to circulating the electrolite, anybody knows what electrolite will do to a radiator. You will need a second container to house the electrolizer container with a seperate bath of water or antifreeze to carry the heat away to a radiator. The only problem I see is the pvc does not transfer heat particularly well. If you could find another type of material to use as your electrolizer container such as SS pipe or glass and attach heat sinks to the outside to help transfer heat to the cooling bath, you could then circulate the cooling bath with a pump to an aluminum transmission cooler. I used this type of set up with a quad Smack cell setup and it worked beautifully. I pray your wife is doing well after her surgery.

1973dodger

[Chris65]

ON an 03 cummins diesel, I do not know of anyone getting any mpg to speak of on HHO. All of the common rail diesels(Ford, Dodge, and Chev.) so far do not react to HHO of anykind. So far it doesn't matter how much HHO you produce weather from small amounts to large. I have a 98 12 valve cummins and I have played with differing amounts of gas from 500ml to 2lpm, my mpg topped out at 23-24mpg. When I turn my cell off it goes back to my base of 19mpg. ON non common rail diesels HHO works. Sorry

I have a friend who is getting 23-24MPG (up from 17MPG before HHO) on his 06 Chev Diesel crew cab 4x4. I have not yet seen his setup, but he paid someone to install it on his truck. He has the big exhaust, programmer, and a bunch of other mods on his truck, so I thought this was quite impressive. Hopefully I can see his setup soon to see what they actually did to his truck.

[precaster1@msn.com]

I have a friend who is getting 23-24MPG (up from 17MPG before HHO) on his 06 Chev Diesel crew cab 4x4. I have not yet seen his setup, but he paid someone to install it on his truck. He has the big exhaust, programmer, and a bunch of other mods on his truck, so I thought this was quite impressive. Hopefully I can see his setup soon to see what they actually did to his truck.

I have an 07 duramax that went from 14.7 mpg to 18 mpg. What were you thinking buying a dodge anyway?

[hydrotinkerer]

I have an 07 duramax that went from 14.7 mpg to 18 mpg. What were you thinking buying a dodge anyway?


Consider that "DODGE" is getting better mileage than that duramax. What were you thinking?

[Roland Jacques]

Jaxom, Ive used those Ball type flow meters for many years. They will get you in the ball park but the sumerged litter bottle is a lot better way of measuring these Gas flows. I calabrate my flow meters against the bottle method.

[DaneDHorstead]

Boynton Stu,

I find it hard to believe, 1 lpm would ever do anything on an engine such as mine. It have tried 2 lpm with a double smacks booster pulling 36 amps and noticed no improvement. I believe the hho made would be so diluted by the time it reached the intake valve, it would have no effect on combustion.

I have asked this question more than a couple of times on this forum, and have had no replies to date. The question is; "Does it trouble any of you why the hho is only igniteable with in a couple of inches of the surface of the water in your bubbler?" Which lends one to think, either you need a higher concentration of hho introduced to the air stream or a closer injection point to the intake valve. Which, in a turbo diesel, is further complicated the amount of air a diesel sucks in, which further dilutes the hho. The other problem is being able to introduce the hho closer to the intake valve, because of the pressure side of the turbo.

JojoJaro,

You have given an example of an electrolosis unit. I need to know if you have witnessed this in action or have built it. What are your impressions as to how and why it works better than the above mentioned efficiency?

1973dodger
Dodger;

Remember the 11th comandment.........

Thou shalt never, ever give up!

Contrary to popular opinion, "don't sweat the small shit", is actually, the twelvth commandment.

In a former (different) thread, you asked me to send you links of the Roy McAlister stuff. I am still unable to find them, but I do remember that in a video, where he runs a two cylinder, 5 Hp John Deer engine (completely on HHO). He describes using a needle, like what you fill a basketball, or football with. He drills a tiny hole into the intake manifold, just above the intake valves, and inserts this needle type device, that has a slight hook shape to it, and he has marked it so he knows which direction it is pointing, as he secures it. Seems to me he tapped the hole, and threaded it into the manifold, but also used some type of sealer on it.

While, running the 5 HP engine this way he explains that any engine will work the same way, provided enough needles are used, to supply each intake valve.

Understand that he uses compressed hydrogen, and not an on demand HHO system.

He sealed the manifold, around the needles, with some product. I can't recall the name of.

He explained, that each valve on opening (downstroke) draws the hho in, with the other fuel, and because the needle is a restricted circumfrence, from the carrier tube, you never loose HHO pressure, but instead increase hydrogen velocity.

However, doing this with a larger engine, would require manifolding the HHO tubes, to six, or eight different locations.

Injecting (for the lack of a better word) HHO only mm away from the valve stem, and seat, the HHO does not have the oportunity to dissipate, to a point of uselessness (if indeed, there is such a point). That close to the cylinders "door", the HHO has to be pulled in.

Understand that my comparison to the basketball filler needle, does not imply that the tube has to be that small in diameter, but what Roy showed in the video, was approx. 1/4 to 1/3 the diameter, of the vinyl hose, and was unrestricted at the end, where the basketball type needle, has two tiny holes at the sides, but is not hollow, at the end.

I believe that the 1/4, to 1/3 tube restriction, still provides enough HHO, and even increases the speed of delivery, at the point of release, from the delivery system, and into the cylinder. And, understand that in your case, you use HHO, and not pure H which is pressurized.

But also consider that only one valve, is opening at a time (although in extremely rapid sequence)


But, if nothing else is learned, never, ever give up!

[DaneDHorstead]

One further point........

Reading on, I saw remarks disscussing heat, and using a radiator (which reacts with electrolyte).

Have you considered running 30 ft of vinyl hose, through an ice chest type cooler, and then out again? While it would require some water, ice is still relatively inexpensive, and even the household with the smallest of freezers, could most likely still find room to freeze a few plastic bottles of ice, on a fairly regular basis. GaterAid bottles don't take up much room, and sealed, can be turned in any which direction, to fill the smallest of available freezer areas.

The freezer is running anyway, so why not have it help to support your HHO habbit?



To do this, you would need some type of a submersible pump (bilge pump, or aquarium pump?) But you need to consider, if the pump uses metals that would react with the electrolyte.

Another crazy thought, would be to use an old blender, as a reserve tank. Of course, it would need an outside source of power to run it, but secureing an input tube near the bottom, and an output tube near the top, in a full canister, with a sealed top. it would provide a drive system (with multiple speeds yet).

You could run two, one for drinks, and one for HHO!

And I want to go on record, naming it the Hamilton Beach Mobile.

Throw a bouple of surf boards on top, and turn up the music, to drown out the noise!

And, carry your get out of jail free card.

[Jaxom]

Dodger.....Active cooling is in the plans, although the double-housing design is not going to be an option due to space limitations. As it is I'm mounting the generator under-body, which is one reason for the remote reservoir. I know better than to mix a caustic solution with an aluminum cooler, so my heat exchanger will just be a simple coiled SS tube in a location where it can get plenty of air, probably under the floorpan outside the subframe rails. I'm hoping that the forced circulation will help move the HHO off the plates as well, for a minor gain in production efficiency.

The reasons for my intention on going from 3 neutrals to 5 are threefold: one is because the generator just runs too hot for my taste, and I'm willing to sacrifice a little production to cool it down. The second reason is that I intend to prove to myself, once and for all, whether more neutral plates will have an effect on waste heat and HHO production with voltage and current remaining constant. I'll be using a very strong NaOH solution and a modified version of RideLong's current feedback power supply (http://hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=917) to keep careful control of the current supplied to the cell. I'll be using the same plates, same electrolyte, same current flow, and same housing to test it both ways so I can decide which config to ouse when I put it in the truck. Thirdly, using 5 neutral plates will cut the number of "powered" plates from 6 per array to 4, which makes the genny's electrical connections simpler and will allow me to use SS jumpers directly to through-housing-bolts and eliminate the copper-core wire from inside the generator. The jumpers will also allow me to double the supply current to the generator without risk of melting the internal wiring.

I've spent a lot of time thinking this out. :D

[JojoJaro]

I have a friend who is getting 23-24MPG (up from 17MPG before HHO) on his 06 Chev Diesel crew cab 4x4. I have not yet seen his setup, but he paid someone to install it on his truck. He has the big exhaust, programmer, and a bunch of other mods on his truck, so I thought this was quite impressive. Hopefully I can see his setup soon to see what they actually did to his truck.


It is not unusual for the Duramax to go from 17 MPG to 23 MPG based on ECM tuning changes alone. I have seen it, I have done it on my Duramax.

What the 23 MPG gain after the addition of HHO or was it after the tuning changes?

[JojoJaro]

I have an 07 duramax that went from 14.7 mpg to 18 mpg. What were you thinking buying a dodge anyway?


How much LPM are you producing at what current and voltage? What is the temp of your genny? Did you make tuning changes?

[1973dodger]

Jaxom,

I look forward to your findings. It seems to me, everything about this electrolosis has an equal and opposite reaction, which is counterproductive. For example, use SS to resist corrosion, it raises resistance, which in turn, produces heat. Reduce heat by dividing voltage, therefore you end up loosing the driving force for your current. Reduce current and you end up loosing production. Increase voltage and current beyond a certain point and you have to rethink your vehicle's electrical system and so on. For me, there must be a compromise somewhere, and it will vary for each vehicle.

1973dodger

[precaster1@msn.com]

Jojo I'm getting 1.5 lpm at 60 amps (too much i'm making a Randy sell) I haven't measured temp but 1 of the 3 cells is abs and its holding up fine. 12-14 volts. No tuning is needed or possible for newer diesels, the gas pedal contols fuel amounts. There is no set air/fuel ratio. Truck is stock.

[HomeGrown]

One of the issues we have with HHO is that everyone on this forum is attaching a different type of cell running different electrolyte mixture into very different vehicles, hooked up in various different ways.

Everyone wants to have a functional cell and good MPG gains, but it's just a shame that so much brain power and effort is being exerted in 691 differnt direction (happens to be the number of active members here @ the time of this posting).

In my humble opinion, I think there needs to be more focus on the "Black Box" electronics associated with HHO production. I am comfortable with low-level electronics, and have enough understanding to be dangerous. But my head spins when I read articles relating to PWM's, resonate frequencies, custom wound coils in the cell tank, voltage/current inverters, custom wound alternators, EFIE units, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...... It's no damn wonder so many of us are resorting to Brute-Force cells. Don't get me wrong, I think all these electronics are the REAL key to high HHO production, low-heat, and low-current draw. Stan Meyers seemed to have this aspect pretty well figured out.

I'm both weary and warry of the endless number of youtube videos that incessently babble about LPM and/or MPG gains, without EVER giving you the ENTIRE story about their setup. Some, if not most of them, show very credible EVIDENCE but never PROOF of their claims by way of FULL DISCLOSURE.

And if anyone cares, that's my primary frustration with HHO.

[1973dodger]

One of the issues we have with HHO is that everyone on this forum is attaching a different type of cell running different electrolyte mixture into very different vehicles, hooked up in various different ways.

Everyone wants to have a functional cell and good MPG gains, but it's just a shame that so much brain power and effort is being exerted in 691 differnt direction (happens to be the number of active members here @ the time of this posting).

In my humble opinion, I think there needs to be more focus on the "Black Box" electronics associated with HHO production. I am comfortable with low-level electronics, and have enough understanding to be dangerous. But my head spins when I read articles relating to PWM's, resonate frequencies, custom wound coils in the cell tank, voltage/current inverters, custom wound alternators, EFIE units, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...... It's no damn wonder so many of us are resorting to Brute-Force cells. Don't get me wrong, I think all these electronics are the REAL key to high HHO production, low-heat, and low-current draw. Stan Meyers seemed to have this aspect pretty well figured out.

I'm both weary and warry of the endless number of youtube videos that incessently babble about LPM and/or MPG gains, without EVER giving you the ENTIRE story about their setup. Some, if not most of them, show very credible EVIDENCE but never PROOF of their claims by way of FULL DISCLOSURE.

And if anyone cares, that's my primary frustration with HHO.

Homegrown,

I, like you, have become very frustrated. I believe you are right concerning the mystical resonance therory. I believe, from what I have read on this forum, most of us are headed down the short path of low voltage electrolosis. I do not say wrong path because it is one way, however I believe it will only take us so far. This path has been explored for years and there is a limit to how far it will take us.

I do believe the secret lies in weaking the covalent bond of the hydrogen to the oxygen. But the h20 molecule self adjusts when tampered with. There is much more that goes on, in one of the simplest molecules on earth, than what we know. From what reasearch I have done, in nature, hydrogen has it's strongest bond near freezing and at it's weakest around 145 F, when in it's purest form, but temperature alone is not enough or else this thing would have been figured out long ago. Is it when another element is added, that causes realignment of the electrons and the bond angle, when it is at it's most vulnerable to splitting, thusly a little extra push causes a chain reation. It stands to reason, after the first bond is broken, there is a realignment to take place. I have read some information concerning hydrogen floride in weaking the covalent bond when joined in an aqueous solution, but it is some pretty knarly stuff. Is it the vibration or movement of the proton on a molecular scale, which causes an realignment of the hydrogen bond, thusly changing the bond angle. It does make sense, when another element becomes soluable in water and is molecularly joined with h20, such as our koh and naoh, there is a realignment of the hydrogen bonds, and perhaps a window of time when it would require less current to achieve better production. Unfortunately, I know just enough about this to get in trouble. I am just trying to apply horse sense to a complex problem, which usually gets one to asking the right questions and then education usually takes us to the answers, unless we just stumble on it.

I do know in one of the experiments I was doing one night, I made a new cell array, I think it was a +nnn-nnn+ array in which I don't really thinks matters which array, but I made up a new batch of distilled water with lye and stuck the cell in the electrolite along with another cell I had made and was going to compare spacings, as to which cell produced the best side by side. Anyway, I turned it on, and I will never forget the sound, and it was making bubbles like crazy and sounded like a dozen cokes, all shook up, and then opened at once. I thought boy, I've finally found the answer, I turned it off and went and got the wife to show her, needless to say I have not duplicated it sense. You could actually hear the bubbles boiling off of the plates and the size of the bubbles were many times the size of the bubbles I have made either berfore or since. Was it this the phenomenon of molecular movement of a new solution of electrolite? Was it that golf shot, you always make once each round, that keeps you coming back? Was this window of time a glimpse of what Stanley Meyers had produced, most likely not. I was using no fancy electronic equipment, but that sound has always been in the back of my mind since.

The therory of electronic resonance and then following that resonance sweet spot electronically, is the $64,000 question. It is either, above most of our heads or is a fluke of nature few achieve. In either case, I believe it is a matter of causing the molecules to move on an atomic level and realign. I can tell you, it is more than simply moving the water around. More questions than answers, though. Just another dangling carrot.

1973dodger

[HomeGrown]

I do know in one of the experiments I was doing one night, I made a new cell array, I think it was a +nnn-nnn+ array in which I don't really thinks matters which array, but I made up a new batch of distilled water with lye and stuck the cell in the electrolite along with another cell I had made and was going to compare spacings, as to which cell produced the best side by side. Anyway, I turned it on, and I will never forget the sound, and it was making bubbles like crazy and sounded like a dozen cokes, all shook up, and then opened at once. I thought boy, I've finally found the answer, I turned it off and went and got the wife to show her, needless to say I have not duplicated it sense. You could actually hear the bubbles boiling off of the plates and the size of the bubbles were many times the size of the bubbles I have made either berfore or since. Was it this the phenomenon of molecular movement of a new solution of electrolite? Was it that golf shot, you always make once each round, that keeps you coming back? Was this window of time a glimpse of what Stanley Meyers had produced, most likely not. I was using no fancy electronic equipment, but that sound has always been in the back of my mind since.



WOW, that's definately got to be a haunting experience, especially since you were not able to re-create it (... YET). Keep trying!

Everything... EVERYTHING must have been perfect to accomplish that. And one of the additional questions is: How far off-perfect can you stray, and still get the same, or nearly the same results? It would appear to be a very narrow path. Maybe not so much if it were done in a National Labratory, but "at home" experimentation has much more error involved.

It would appear that us lone experimenters are pretty much on our own. No major corporation (automakers included) have admitted to working on HHO systems, although I'd be quite surprised if they weren't quietly working on it.

[Stevo]

1973dodger,

I think your point of being skeptical is (just like everyone else has mentioned) a good one, but you are mentioning an '03 Dodge Truck. Diesel at that. I mean, how much tuning have you been able to do overall? A/F ratio, ignition timing ect...? I know nothing about gigantor trucks since I drive small cars, but it seems there are a lot of people here who see zero gains and actually less MPG without tweaking ignition timing and such. Seems like it would be way more difficult to do on the vehicle you mention. I think most newer vehicles '2000+ don't allow adjustment of any of those things I mentioned. Smith03Jetta seems to have provided quite a bit of evidence that this additive actually does help MPG and he did that on two pretty different vehicles. Someone correct me if Smith's array of data is not valid enough. My vehicle is a 96 Acura Integra GS-R, so it's relatively close to his vehicle and considering other peoples' experiments with Accords and such it seems I will definitely need to tweak some of my settings (mainly ignition timing). BTW, claims of big LPM just seem rather bogus to me. I would have to build a unit that achieved the same in order to believe, thus the reason we are all sort of "on our own" here. Too many people in the past have taken the HHO idea down a completely different path of personal gain through greed by scamming the unsuspecting. So now we are all VERY skeptical. It makes sense.

[Genchaos]

Many scientific discoveries are made by accident. I personally feel that someone in this forum will eventually accidentally discover something important.

The reason I feel that is because many times a high education will drill into your head that certain things are not possible. This prevents many scientists from using the "what if" method of research fully. They will too easily look at previous research and think "it didn't work then" and look for another course. Most of us are ignorant enough that we do not know what is thought to be impossible. Ignorance is NOT stupidity, it is a lack of knowledge.

Faraday led us into the current electronics age through sheer genius, yet he was too ignorant to mathematically explain his many of his theories. Most have been proven but some are still not fully explained. He was the rare type of scientific investigator that did not let accepted theories prevent him from playing "why" and "what if". Most of us are not hampered by excessive "knowledge" and I feel that one of us will literally trip over a major discovery. 1973dodger had an even happen that he has been unable to duplicate or explain, it's just a matter of time.....

[1973dodger]

I don't doubt Mr Smith's data, he seems very credible to me. One just has to wonder, though, if a good amount of those gains were there for the taking with or without hho. From what experience I have done with adjusting the timing and the map sensor on a 1992 chevy truck, after installing an hho unit on it, was of little difference, except to say the truck ran worse. The truck seemed to run the best with the hho on with no adjustments. There is no mechanical timing adjustment for a diesel anyway. A diesel ignites much closer to TDC anyway and no oxygen sensors to mess with. There are chips out there which can fine tune the engines settings for increased mpg for most diesels and some gasoline motors. But I do not have a small engine on any of my vehicles, so I can not comment either way. Yes there are greedy people out there and many out there are bogus, both of which have costs me time and money, in going down many a wrong path. All of us want this thing to work, but we must be careful whose advice we take. If an experiment is not repeatable or has not been repeated by an outside source other than the inventor, it is either bogus or a fluke or the inventor is holding back some info for the big payday, and I would and will remain skepticle. That was the nice thing about the smack's booster and plumb-a-bob's booster, for example, it has been repeated many times. I don't really blame someone from trying to make enough money to pay for the money and time they have invested in this painstaking project, but so much of the products sold out there are junk and don't achieve the claims made. If someone out there had a time tested, foolproof, and witnessed hho product, I would be first in line. But people as a whole, who are selling these products, are not interested in words like credibility, honor, and honesty. It just gives the whole thing a bad wrap.

1973dodger

[Stevo]

I don't doubt Mr Smith's data, he seems very credible to me. One just has to wonder, though, if a good amount of those gains were there for the taking with or without hho...

Here's the thing and we've all heard this before. Stan Meyer was convicted of fraud because he claimed to have a soley water powered engine and when the courts investigated, the car wasn't shown and the only thing he could show was his fuel cell which was by no means impressive and thus his demise. This is definitely a shady/scammy thing to read, but doesn't prove that the whole HHO supplementation thing to be a bunch of b*ll sh** either. I don't sell these da** things and never intend to, so I have no reason to try and instill false hope or fool the general masses. I *really* just don't think that every single person here is lying through their teeth to try and get money or attention or whatever other personal gains there may seem to be. I also don't blindly believe many of the claims I see concerning huge gains or high LPM output.

[BoyntonStu]

Here's the thing and we've all heard this before. Stan Meyer was convicted of fraud because he claimed to have a soley water powered engine and when the courts investigated, the car wasn't shown and the only thing he could show was his fuel cell which was by no means impressive and thus his demise. This is definitely a shady/scammy thing to read, but doesn't prove that the whole HHO supplementation thing to be a bunch of b*ll sh** either. I don't sell these da** things and never intend to, so I have no reason to try and instill false hope or fool the general masses. I *really* just don't think that every single person here is lying through their teeth to try and get money or attention or whatever other personal gains there may seem to be. I also don't blindly believe many of the claims I see concerning huge gains or high LPM output.

Years ago, they used to sell fuel savers.

I bought a hot spark coil (remember them?) I got 20% gain.

Next, I got super spark plugs, another 15%

After that special wires, another 10%

Then went for a magneto, 25%

Cyclone for air intake, 20%

I had to stop, because the efficiency went up so high.

Gas kept pouring coming out of my filler cap and it was dangerous.

This is why I like science and experiment verification.

BoyntonStu

[Chris65]

It is not unusual for the Duramax to go from 17 MPG to 23 MPG based on ECM tuning changes alone. I have seen it, I have done it on my Duramax.

What the 23 MPG gain after the addition of HHO or was it after the tuning changes?

The mileage gain came from the HHO only. The truck had the ECM mods done last summer. He has the thing in the highest performance mode and does a lot of towing with a 40 foot 5th gooseneck trailer, so his mileage gains are pretty impressive. I am hoping to get a look at his cell that he had installed, mainly because he says he is running only distilled water with no added electrolyte, and he is running at about 10 amps. I know something sounds strange here, but the guys that did his install have been at it for quite a while. Maybe someone has an explanation as to what his setup is, or what I should be looking for.

[1973dodger]

Stevo,

I never said all in this forum were full of B.S. I think it is crazy for you to find offense with what I have said. My point is be careful of what you spend precious money and time on. The concept of HHO I still have faith in and I believe Mr. Smith to be credible as well as many others on this forum. I am one of those who perceives Stanley Meyer to be at least partially legit. So you are preaching to the choir here.The fact is, I have not reached my goals and am to a point where I am at a standstill. But you will have to admit there is more misinformation or partial information out there, which leads to frustration with lost time and money.

Boynton Stu makes a good point though, there have been many fuel saving devices out there which turned out to either work for a few or totally bogus. Whether I believe or want something to be true, has no effect on what the actual truth is or is'nt. If simple brute force electrolosis is the answer to the truth, fine, but I think all of us know in our heart, there is more to it than this. Which is the "Dangling Carrot" mentioned in this thread, which, for the time being, is just beyond my grasp. If I can't repeat what you or some other has done, does it make it not true? No, it could be true and I am missing some small nuance of what you or some other has done or what you have done will not apply to my vehicle. Or you could have possibly misinterpreted what you thought you have done. For instance, when I first started my hho experiments, I had a piece of crap amp guage, and when I thought I was making 6 lpm at 42 amps turned out to be 96 amps when I borrowed a good clamp-on style meter from a freind.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, I believe the answer lies beyond simple brute force electrolosis. Am I right, is this the truth? Only time will tell what truth will turn out to be. Until then it is the Dangling Carrot. After all, Is'nt the truth which will set us FREE?

1973dodger

[Stevo]

Years ago, they used to sell fuel savers.

I bought a hot spark coil (remember them?) I got 20% gain.

Next, I got super spark plugs, another 15%

After that special wires, another 10%

Then went for a magneto, 25%

Cyclone for air intake, 20%

I had to stop, because the efficiency went up so high.

Gas kept pouring coming out of my filler cap and it was dangerous.

This is why I like science and experiment verification.

BoyntonStu

Hmm. right. Don't think I mentioned science and experimentation verification where not the way to go. And to that point, my willingness to try and base my experiments on science and verification is the reason why I haven't just jumped out there and posted a bunch of pictures and videos just to (in the end) show a different perspective of what has already been captured.

[Stevo]

Stevo,

I never said all in this forum were full of B.S. I think it is crazy for you to find offense with what I have said...

Even if you truly think that I took offense (which I didn't), you may need to know that sometimes I just like to curse and say stuff like sh**. :o Sorry if that's the way it comes off to you. BTW, your first post in this thread actually had you mentioning that your comments may offend some of us. Didn't phase me much, but it shouldn't be too crazy to you if it did. I mean, you basically said that you expected it. Sometimes skepticism frustrates me as much as scamming. It makes me feel like I am on a roller coaster. <barf>

[BoyntonStu]

Hmm. right. Don't think I mentioned science and experimentation verification where not the way to go. And to that point, my willingness to try and base my experiments on science and verification is the reason why I haven't just jumped out there and posted a bunch of pictures and videos just to (in the end) show a different perspective of what has already been captured.

"My willingness to try and base my experiments on science and verification is the reason why I haven't just jumped out there and posted a bunch of pictures and videos."


Your statement should be printed out and laminated for all experimenters to carry in their wallets for them to take out and read from time to time.

I only wish.

Great concept!

BoyntonStu

[Stevo]

Thanks. Yeh, watching all these crazy videos on Youtube, reading NASA documents, researching dead researchers, trying to avoid false witnesses and spammers while in the end trying to make sense out of it all just makes me nuts.

[Stevo]

1973dodger,

I think I may have found out why there are claims of 4+ lpm. In this thread: http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=253. yangga mentions this:

"Ideal dilution is 28%, this is what serious hho builders follows. This makes the water fully conductive and to avoid any resistance in the catalyst and minimize heat build-up, then you control the current draw by using a pwm."

So sure, of course you will have higher output with higher concentrate. Not very safe though, but higher output. Anyway, hope that helps. You may already know this.

[1973dodger]

Stevo,

I agree with you about the conductivity and and potential hazards involved with that kind of concentrations. I just in the back of my mind have to think there is a better way than brute force electrolosis. It has been stated in so many words, that if it is good enough for NASA we should take that as an absolute fact and look no further. I think NASA may not be telling all there secrets other than what is commonly accepted knowlege.

As I have previously stated in this thread, I think that water can be broken down into it's basic elements with only so much efficiency, using brute force electrolosis. One has to wonder, how much is water impressed by our different electrolosis designs. I believe we have to break this problem down to it's basic elements, meaning we have to study the nature of water. We need to find out what weakens the water molecule, so the hho is more easily harvested. We know or have heard, the covalent bonds of H2O are weakened by various conditions. Whether it be temperature, vibrations, chemically, or maybe a combination of all the above. It is my opinion, the answer lies beyond simple electrolsis. I do think electrolosis will be used in the end to do the harvesting, but we need to prepare the H2O for harvesting. I read many other forums, though this is my favorite, we need to start looking beyond electrolosis. I think we are concentrating to much of our efforts on cell design. You've heard the old saying "There is no replacement for displacement". From what extensive experimenting I have done with cell design, there is no replacement for amperage in simple electrolosis. I do understand, some designs are more efficient than others, but usually the difference is no more than 10 to 15 amps used per liter of gas produced.

I know most of us think we lack the knowledge to take this any further and nothing could be more true with what I personally bring to the table. The only thing I bring to the table is a little "horse sense". With that said, I believe the answer will be found by accident by some unsuspecting soul. Sorry Stevo, I did not mean to sound "preachy", just thinking out loud.

1973dodger

[Stevo]

Sorry Stevo, I did not mean to sound "preachy", just thinking out loud.

1973dodger

Nah, you don't sound preachy. I totally agree with you on this whole topic including the harsh chemical ratios.

[Riddler250]

Copper is the best conductor there is, but it will corrode very fast, especialy in a caustic bath. Gold is the second best conductor but will eventually corrode. Im not sure where stainless would be. Too bad gold is WAY to expensive, or it could solve the heat problems

[Stevo]

There has been some talk around on the web about electrically conductive plastic polymers. If this was widely available in the form of sheets, you would be able to encase the copper anodes and cathodes and build your generator that way.

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2186696/boffins-develop-electrically

[1973dodger]

You guys are certainly on the right path here, in a search for a more conductive material. It is my contention, though, the caustic bath is not the corrosive factor for our electrodes. It is the effects of oxygen, natures little scavenger and cleaner-upper. Concerning to conductivity of elements go; silver, then copper, then gold, then aluminum are the rankings according to www.enviromentalchemistry.com. But I think you will find regardless of current you will draw, the output will be directly related to current draw, in other words you will produce the same lpm per amp used.

1973dodger

[Cadillac]

I just in the back of my mind have to think there is a better way than brute force electrolosis. It has been stated in so many words, that if it is good enough for NASA we should take that as an absolute fact and look no further. I think NASA may not be telling all there secrets other than what is commonly accepted knowlege.

NASA did not use water electrolysis. They used straight hydrogen or hydrogen from methanol steam reformation in thier experiments. They consider water electrolysis to be to inefficent.

The drawback in the methanol steam reformation was the heat. It effectively reduced volumetric efficiency in the engine by heating the intake air temperature. They consider this to be an adverse reaction, although, in some car situations this could make the (gas) car lean itself out. Say like a Cadillac 4.1, 4.5 or 4.9 with the IAT actually mounted in the intake manifold.

In a later paper discussing methanol electrolysis they state they use platinum-ruthenium (for electrolysis, might also add a piss poor conductor). They also went on to support methanol/water electrolysis over just straight water. It only requires 0.2-0.4 volts to break the bond and has better ending by products. 3H2 and carbon dioxide. Co2 can easily be blocked out using a Peolite molecular sieve (they left out to use grade 4A sieve). This will effectively block out water vapors and methanol steam on top of the CO2.

The use of a molecular sieve of this grade would be helpful in just HHO systems as well. Rogue electroylites are not going to get past it, neither is water.

The best conducting metal I can think of would be silver.