Discouraged by 'NAY SAYERS' [Archive]

tbhavsar

09-27-2008, 02:35 PM

Discouraged by 'NAY SAYERS'

I am working on my hydrogen booster and installed it; not much success so far but I keep on trying. During my research on Google I found something below and got discouraged.

“It is a common misconception that the power you get from the alternator comes for free. IT DOES NOT.

It takes GASOLINE to run the alternator - with the resultant 20% efficiency of the gasoline engine, and another loss in the alternator output.

The electricity splits the water into oxygen and hydrogen with yet another loss of efficiency.

The oxygen and hydrogen are recombined in the internal combustion engine, along with the burning of gasoline and oxygen. This is a further loss of efficiency.

Adding oxygen and hydrogen to the input gas stream DOES NOT improve the efficiency of the gasoline burn, and CAN NOT produce more energy than is put in.

Throw a solar panel on the roof and use THAT to crack the water, but do not think you will get any improved efficiency from cracking the water with the alternator.

You have thrown your money away if you think this will work. The law of conservation of energy will beat you every time. It's the same as trying to make your car levitate - the law of gravity is your enemy on that one.

I look forward to seeing how you convince yourself that this is working, but I predict that you will be rather disappointed.”

Painless

09-27-2008, 03:11 PM

Don't be put off by these narrow minded nay sayers. It's easy for them to sit at their computer and lay down the law about something that they haven't even tried or researched utilizing rules of physics which they think are the only ones that apply.

There are plenty of good honest and methodical people on this forum that will show you their own results and proof that this technology does work. If I can get a 3 mpg gain around town on a truck that weighs almost 6500 lbs with just 1.25 litres per min of HHO and no other mods yet then that's personal proof enough for me that I'm on the right track to saving myself some money.

Don't be discouraged by people that do no practical research other than citing laws thinking that they are the only ones that apply. NASA has proven that hydrogen can assist the efficiency of the internal combustion engine, need I say more?

Welcome to our forums, read your way around and learn as you go. If you're lucky, you might even see one of the nay sayers filling up at the pump as you drive by, be sure to toot the horn, smile and wave.

DaneDHorstead

09-27-2008, 03:20 PM

Whoever wrote that, is 100% full of crap!

You are running your cars generator anyhow! The generators in most cases are able to produce nearly twice the electrical energy you car needs, with virtually every device working (radio, AC, winshield washers, power windows, convertable top, power seats, etc) To even include some seats that can warm, or even cool your ass, as you drive.

In truth, the system can drive most, if not all of these devices at the same time, but who ever uses more than several of them at once?

Further, you can even get alternators that have even greater outputs, if needed.

Your alternator, is not equipped with a switch, to produce 20% of its possible effiency, or 40, to 60% if you decide to drive with the seats bouncing up, and down, or front to back, while your winshield wipers scrape dry glass, in addition to the AC, and radio.

Truth is, the alternator has only one control, as so does your engine. It's either on, or it's off! Energy that is produced by the alternator, is either used, or wasted, as the alternator can not be turned off, while the car engine is running. While it's true you can dump energy it produces, you still use a portion of your fuel bill to turn the alternator.

The HHO generators are only using current that has already been produced, and that enery would ordinarilly, would go to waste, if it was not used.

The 2 or 3% suplimental HHO (by comparison to the whole volume of fuel burned), can deliver a bennefit of ten times that value, or greater, by causing a quicker, hotter, and a complete burn of all the fuel, gasoline, and HHO combined!

The quicker burn, also is responsible for less carbon build up in the cylinders, pipes, and catalytic converters. In fact, even though the burn is hotter, the speed of the hydrogen burn, causes the engine to run cooler!

Also, in producing HHO, it only takes two, or three percent supplimental HHO, to make your enginge burn three times hotter, causing you to completely burn the gasoline you were previously only getting a 40 to 60% burn from!

DaneDHorstead

09-27-2008, 03:29 PM

Painless;

You and I obviously both jumped on this thread with the same basic velocity.....

However, i want to note that while you claim a 3 MPG increase, in a 6500 lb truck, some will wrongly read that, as 3% rather than its true percentage of increase.

For a better understanding, convert the 3 MPG increase, to an actual percentage of increase, and people will better see the light!

resago

09-27-2008, 03:32 PM

these are the same pinheads who say you can't run a diesel on WVO.
I don't care what stupid people think, they are the ones paying $4.00/gal, while I pay $.50/gal:rolleyes:

DaneDHorstead

09-27-2008, 03:43 PM

I'm showing my age!

I accidently typed generator (several times), instead of "alternator"

Yes! I very well remember, cars with six volt batteries, and generators.

In fact, I learned to drive a Model T, with no battery (or starter). And, it didn't even have a gear shift, as gears were changed by double clutching (after you almost ripped your thumb off, crank starting the engine).

When using the hand crank, you never wrapped your thumb around the handle, as you couldn't let go of it quickly enough, when the engine caught. Many people broke their arms that way, because the crank whipped back, and the couldn't move the arm quick enough.

I'm not as old as the car was, but I do have some fond memmories of it!

DigitalMocking

09-27-2008, 04:16 PM

People who talk in terms of absolutes and conservation of energy don't really understand what the point of HHO in the fuel system is, and they don't really understand how cars work.

30% of the gasoline in your stock vehicle isn't burned to propel the car forward. It's passed though to the cat to fuel the chemical process that cleans your exhaust. Your alternator is also at 100% production starting at around 2000 rpm, so most of the time, your alternator is spinning and not doing anything anyway, so you aren't creating any energy, you're using what's there better.

The point of HHO generation isn't to magically create energy from thin air. It's to change the properties of you F/A mixture's burn to get a cleaner and more complete burn, this allows you to use less gasoline to move your car forward.

tbhavsar

09-27-2008, 05:22 PM

Thanks for all your feedbacks; that comforts me.

Painless

09-27-2008, 05:55 PM

Thanks for all your feedbacks; that comforts me.

You're more than welcome!

One thing I would definitely encourage you (and everyone else) to do is to start your own experiment thread, along the lines of 'smith experiment in hho' and my own 'painless experiment in hho'. This is a great way to:

A) Share your experiences with others, no matter how trivial they are.

B) Get input on your thought processes and problems, everyone can get all the history from your thread and be in a better position to help and learn.

C) Keep a clear diary of your experiments and results. It's been a help to me, more than once, to go back over my own thread and find new direction.

We're all here to help each other and we all, hopefully, believe in the capabilities of what we are doing. There may be some here thaty don't fall into that catagory, but they are more 'interested parties observing from the fence' than ignorant tunnel visioned 'nay sayers'.

Go ahead and share your work with us and we'll all do our best to move you forward to some great results!

BoyntonStu

09-27-2008, 06:04 PM

Whoever wrote that, is 100% full of crap!

Energy that is produced by the alternator, is either used, or wasted, as the alternator can not be turned off, while the car engine is running. While it's true you can dump energy it produces, you still use a portion of your fuel bill to turn the alternator.

Dane,

Please rethink this statement.

Have you ever seen a generator lug when power was turned on?

BoyntonStu

Roland Jacques

09-27-2008, 09:12 PM

“It is a common misconception that the power you get from the alternator comes for free. IT DOES NOT.

It takes GASOLINE to run the alternator - with the resultant 20% efficiency of the gasoline engine, and another loss in the alternator output.

The electricity splits the water into oxygen and hydrogen with yet another loss of efficiency.

The oxygen and hydrogen are recombined in the internal combustion engine, along with the burning of gasoline and oxygen. This is a further loss of efficiency.

Adding oxygen and hydrogen to the input gas stream DOES NOT improve the efficiency of the gasoline burn, and CAN NOT produce more energy than is put in.

Throw a solar panel on the roof and use THAT to crack the water, but do not think you will get any improved efficiency from cracking the water with the alternator.

You have thrown your money away if you think this will work. The law of conservation of energy will beat you every time. It's the same as trying to make your car levitate - the law of gravity is your enemy on that one.

I look forward to seeing how you convince yourself that this is working, but I predict that you will be rather disappointed.”[/QUOTE]

This is a true statement. I had to read it three times just to be sure.

He just does not understand how the engine uses energy, and or Why the engine is only 20% efficient.

This is the only questionable statement he has but it is correct.
"Adding oxygen and hydrogen to the input gas stream DOES NOT improve the efficiency of the gasoline burn"

Yes, technically HHO does not improve "the efficiency of the gasoline burn" /IE creating any extra energy. It does however change the characteristics of the gasoline burn. The new fuel mix can now makes the energy of the gasoline be transferred to rotary power of the engine better than without HHO (less wasted energy). So the "ENERGY" of the gasoline is not "more efficient", but the engine can use the energy more efficiently. No law of conservation is broken with this concept.

As far as being able to Break the law of conservation that’s a different subject.

bigapple

09-27-2008, 11:16 PM

Dane,

Please rethink this statement.

Have you ever seen a generator lug when power was turned on?

BoyntonStu

what hes saying is alot of the alternator's energy is there and isnt being harnessed. when will u ever see a hydrogen generator pull 70-100 amps and stress an alternator? if u ever see a generator that pulls much power than that, its not used in a car. we're using very little of the energy supplied by the alternator to use more of a less expensive "gas" for the engine. just using excess energy from the alternator. thats it

obviously u know this though. maybe just a mistakenly worded statement

RMForbes

09-27-2008, 11:21 PM

I use a post like this one to counter the 'it can't possibly work' 'the numbers don't add up' arguments. This was actually a from several post that I had made on several forums that was combined into one.

I agree that the Water4Gas type sites are promoting their "E-Books" in a way that any many believe smells like a scam. They use email blasts, and MLM type promotional style. Their designs are poorly designed and dangerous. But because some people are selling poorly designed dangerous products does not mean that hydrogen injection is all a scam. In fact it does work for scientific reasons that most of the nay-sayers ignore. Hydrogen is the smallest, lightest, and most reactive element, that is why it is at the top left side of the periodical chart of the elements. Hydrogen ignites easier and burns many times faster than any other element. Adding hydrogen to an internal combustion engine is like adding charcoal lighter fluid to your Bar-B-Q, it gets things started faster. This was the conclusion of the JPL and NASA studies from the 70's. Hydrogen injection has nothing to do with adding or transferring additional energy to the combustion, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is therefore not being violated.

Without hydrogen injection gasoline is ignited by the spark plug several degrees before the beginning of the combustion/power stroke and is still burning when the piston reaches the bottom of this power stroke. The remaining unburnt fuel is then forced through the exhaust system to the EGR system to be recycled or to the catalytic converter to be incinerated (wasted). With hydrogen injection the combustion starts much faster because the hydrogen burns quickly, it ignites the primary fuel from all sides at once. When proper engine timing and mixture adjustments are made, the peak of the resulting pressure wave created by the combustion is higher (more energetic) and closer to the beginning of the power stroke. Since most of the energy is released when the piston is near the top of the combustion stroke more energy is absorbed by the piston and converted to torque. Less energy is lost as heat through the exhaust. There is no unburnt fuel to be recycled by the EGR system or incinerated by the catalytic converter. This is the mechanism that creates increased system efficiency. Faster more efficient burn that converts more energy to torque and less lost energy out the exhaust.

What the 1977 NASA study does show conclusively is that hydrogen injection does reduce ignition lag and increases flame speeds. Therefore, designing systems for optimum fuel efficiencies, requires the energy released from the combustion to be focused at the very beginning of the power stroke, where the piston has the maximum time and travel to absorb the energy of the resulting pressure wave. In their summary the NASA engineers concluded that this would be possible with fuel reforming systems controlled by a closed loop computerized control system. Unfortunately, they did not have these systems readily available to them in 1977. But we have this type of technology in common use today. While, electrolysis based hydrogen injection may not be the answer to reach optimal fuel efficiencies, they are the easiest to produce and test. Modest fuel economy gains are being produced by individuals and companies around the world with well designed safe units. But, Steam reforming systems are where near optimal fuel efficiency gains are currently being realized.

Steam reformer systems utilize the waste heat from the exhaust system to produce hydrogen in higher concentrations than electrolysis and reform the gasoline (or any primary fuel) to faster burning smaller components. By using the hydrogen to reduce ignition lag to lowest possible time and processing the fuel to be fully consumed in the shortest period possible, near optimal fuel efficiencies are being reached. At the same time greenhouse gas and hydrocarbon emissions are greatly reduced. While most of the steam reformer systems available are using fossil fuels, it has been shown that some alternative fuels work even better. Fuels that contain large amounts of water work the best, with the added advantage that they do not require any additional storage/delivery system for water. The water to produce hydrogen and steam for the reforming process is available directly from the fuel.

Cadillac

09-28-2008, 12:24 AM

Less energy is lost as heat through the exhaust. There is no unburnt fuel to be recycled by the EGR system or incinerated by the catalytic converter. This is the mechanism that creates increased system efficiency. Faster more efficient burn that converts more energy to torque and less lost energy out the exhaust.

In a lean burn at least:

Yeah less heat is losed in the exhaust system. This is because it has moved internally. You then lose any efficiency gains to the car's cooling system.

"My car runs cooler since I have installed HHO." Well yeah, at least according to the gauge. That is also because the coolant is circulating more because of the extra internal heat generated by a lean burn. With more resistance against the water pump impellor on a constant basis you then lose the efficiency gained. While the water pump is not circulating you are losing the efficiency because the metal temperatures are hotter and the air entering the combustion chamber is less dense due to the extra heat.

Keep in mind water transfers heat very well. Coolant does not. Adding more water to your ratio of water:coolant would counteract some of the lose. It would absorb more heat when circulating through the engine and transfer it to the radiator to be cooled more effectively.

I do agree with the orginal posting. There is no real way to improve overall efficiency with the addition of hydrogen but that is not the point of the addition of the hydrogen. It is using less of something that cost a lot of money in lue of something that is free (at least in terms of price). The goal is not to improve overall efficiency. It is to improve the lean operation in order to save money.

The only form of hydrogen that is useful for true power is liquid hydrogen. Liquid hydrogen only exist at -473*F so it seems pretty unlikely to be making its way to my car anytime soon.

H2OPWR

09-28-2008, 01:32 AM

500 years ago the same person that made the quote you refered to qouted that the world is flat. 100 years ago the same person that made the quote that you referred to said that a human could not breathe at speeds of 1 mile per minute or higher. 75 years ago the same person that made the quote you refer to said that splitting the atom would destroy the world. GET OUT OF THE TEXT BOOKS AND LET YOUR MIND WANDER AND TRY THE IMPOSSIBLE. IT JUSST MAY LEAD TO PROGRESS. SOMETIMES THE PEOPLE WRITING TEXT BOOKS AND TEACHING PHYSICS ARE WRONG!!!!!

tbhavsar

09-28-2008, 10:29 AM

You're more than welcome!

One thing I would definitely encourage you (and everyone else) to do is to start your own experiment thread, along the lines of 'smith experiment in hho' and my own 'painless experiment in hho'. This is a great way to:

A) Share your experiences with others, no matter how trivial they are.

B) Get input on your thought processes and problems, everyone can get all the history from your thread and be in a better position to help and learn.

C) Keep a clear diary of your experiments and results. It's been a help to me, more than once, to go back over my own thread and find new direction.

We're all here to help each other and we all, hopefully, believe in the capabilities of what we are doing. There may be some here thaty don't fall into that catagory, but they are more 'interested parties observing from the fence' than ignorant tunnel visioned 'nay sayers'.

Go ahead and share your work with us and we'll all do our best to move you forward to some great results!

Painless,

I liked your idea, I will create a new thread to track my experiment, what I am doing with results obtained so far.

Roland Jacques

09-28-2008, 11:00 AM

In a lean burn at least:

Yeah less heat is losed in the exhaust system. This is because it has moved internally. You then lose any efficiency gains to the car's cooling system.

This is not accurate. The heat is not moved anywhere. It is just more fully converted into mechanical energy like RMForbes explained

"My car runs cooler since I have installed HHO."
Well yeah, at least according to the gauge. That is also because the coolant is circulating more because of the extra internal heat generated by a lean burn. With more resistance against the water pump impellor on a constant basis you then lose the efficiency gained. While the water pump is not circulating you are losing the efficiency because the metal temperatures are hotter and the air entering the combustion chamber is less dense due to the extra heat.

This is not accurate ether. The same response the heat/energy is just more fully converted into mechanical energy like RMForbes explained

The goal is not to improve overall efficiency. It is to improve the lean operation in order to save money.

The goal IS to improve over all efficiency. The leaning of fuel mixtures is not necessary to see gains from HHO use. HHO MPG benifits are just enhanced by leaning.

It is using less of something that cost a lot of money in lue of something that is free (at least in terms of price).

This is wrong, and is bad information. Spreading the myth that alternator energy is without extra fuel cost is un-true, and it is counter productive to helping people understand how HHO boosting works.

HHO Boosting is great for us, our country, and the world. But we really need to get the FACTS right. It needs to be explained correctly. RMForbes did a great job and is spot on.
(Not sure about the steam reforming system)

resago

09-28-2008, 11:25 AM

simply put, its an additive that works.
it enables you to lean off the petrol.

DaneDHorstead

09-28-2008, 12:33 PM

Rolland Jaques;

Although the above responce was not aimed at my statement, it is nonetheless alligned with my former comments on wasted alternator energy.

Note that I do not claim the rotation of the alternator is free energy! But I do claim that not propperly using it, to aid a situation, is wasted energy. With a simple it's "on", or it's "off", situation, it in most cases produces enough energy to power several HHO generators, simply by utilizing energy that is already produced (and consequently, already paid for, through your gasoline dollar).

Because Albert E=MC2 also teaches, that everything it relative, it becomes somewhat comparitive to utilizing cold, or sub freezing temperatures, to protect foods in a refrigerator/freezer........

It is more expensive to freeze two boxes of vegetables, and a quart of Icecream, than to to freeze a unit crammed full of stuff. Plus, consider the fact that in a power failure, a freezer that is 90% full, will keep far longer, than the freezer with 10 percent capacity utilized.

There are those that would argue that the cost is the same, to freeze either condition, but divide that cost among all the items contained within, and that argument is blown out of the water.

Getting back to HHO, all I am claiming is that the alternator is already running (like the freezer), lets use it to it's fullest ability, to ease our situation.

BoyntonStu

09-28-2008, 01:46 PM

It is more expensive to freeze two boxes of vegetables, and a quart of Icecream, than to to freeze a unit crammed full of stuff.

I disagree.

Your claim is that it takes more energy to make 1 tray of ice cubes than to freeze an entire freezer filled with water.

It takes a 12,000 BTU A/C running continuously for 24 hours to cool the equivalent of a ton (2,000 pounds) of ice that melted.

That is why A/C's are rated in tons.

It certainly takes a lot more energy to freeze a pound of water than a ton.

However, once you freeze up the entire freezer, it will keep cold longer than if it was just a tray of ice.

You do not get something from nothing.

BoyntonStu

DaneDHorstead

09-28-2008, 02:29 PM

Stu;

I won't argue that there is more energy expended, freexing the entire contents of the freezer, vs. a single tray of water, soon to be come ice.

What I am saying, is that I have not touched the dial inside the freezer (as there also is no dial on the alternator), and the freezer does not shut off, when the tray of water, increases its mass, to become ice.

Intead, it continues to run, and fill a massive empty space, with sub freezing temperatures.

My point is not the amount of energy expended, as much as it is the useage of that energy, that is already commited.

And I note that you agree with the part that a freezer full of frozen foods will last much longer, in a power outage. But, it still will spoil if the outage is too long!

A voltage regulator, will in most cases adjust currents, the alternator puts out, however in my case (using the marine battery with both top and side post), I bypass the voltage regulator, using only a solenoid to route current to the generators breakers, and on through them, to ground.

You can validly argue that there is a cost to run, it, and I accept your argument!

But, you are already turning the alternator, so utilize it, to its fullest potential, rather than to waste it!

Cadillac

09-28-2008, 02:46 PM

Roland Jacques, look at the NASA paper page 28, table IIL. It supports my claim that more energy is losed to the cooling system when lean operating with the addition of hydrogen. Unless you want to dispute NASA's results/test.

Now what I said in terms of circulating the coolant more is a guess. Not a uneducated guess though. In my particular car it is not a guess, I know this is what is occuring by test and observation.

I am not really sure what you point is on the alternator subject. I agreed with the orginal posting at the top of the first page. If you can effectively improve the lean operation range then yes you can use less gasoline to turn the alternator. Now the energy drawn from the car does equal what is used. What I am saying is that the gasoline is $4 a gallon. I never had to swipe my credit card on my car to get the alternator to turn so in that sense it is free.

I was not trying to knock RMForbes. I thought he made a very good post and very well written. I was however disputing that just because the exhaust was cooler did not mean that the car was taking full advantage of it. It was not increasing efficiency rather losing it somewhere else.

sandman

09-28-2008, 03:18 PM

HiTechRedNeck73

09-28-2008, 04:24 PM

tbhavsar

09-28-2008, 07:42 PM

Roland Jacques

09-28-2008, 10:59 PM

look at it this way, if your hho device uses 12v @ 20amps... that's 240watts

most people have radios, amps, and speakers that use more than that...

run around for a week with out your radio on and see what your full economy looks like... you won't see much of a difference...

True enough. That is because 240watts only amounts to about 1 or 2% of fuel usage on some cars. Of course we would not notice this. But that does not mean its free, small yes, free no.

Even if it was "free energy", 240 watts (= 1 or 2% of gas energy) does not even come close to explaining our large gains. 30 plus% (without leaning). So using this “recouping the unused alternator energy” argument to explain how HHO Boosting works, makes no sense ether way you look at it.

The reaction (of HHO & gas) and the interaction ( of this Bi fuel in a ICE) are the only logical reasons explaining how boosting works. Mentioning the Alternator energy recouping is almost like mentioning a planes tire pressurewhen discussing how a 747 airplane can fly.

Roland Jacques

09-28-2008, 11:06 PM

Cadilac, do you have a link to the nasa papper? I dont recall the heat part. I think we may be talking about two different things. :)

DigitalMocking

09-28-2008, 11:14 PM

So then where does the gasoline come from to produce the electricity my alternator generates when my firebird is runing on HHO alone then?

Dont let the dickweeds and scientists get you down. If you build it it will run.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KuL9l13g0wg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KuL9l13g0wg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

That's just what this movement needs, crackpots and scammers. Congratulations on clamping down a vacuum advance line. Good lord man.

Scooterdog

10-04-2008, 08:02 AM

So then where does the gasoline come from to produce the electricity my alternator generates when my firebird is runing on HHO alone then?

Dont let the dickweeds and scientists get you down. If you build it it will run.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KuL9l13g0wg&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KuL9l13g0wg&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

You would have to change a hell of alot to make your "firebird" run on hho alone. Seen a youtube vid of guys claiming to run an 8cyl engine on hho alone, but yet it ran on gas alone too? Simply F-N amazing!

Ya, don't listen to the educated people. If you needed heart surgery, I'm sure you'd have your buddy next door do the operation rather than someone with a degree that knows how not to kill you.

hygear

10-04-2008, 08:30 AM

How much horsepower does an alternator pull ? You can mathematically determine the horsepower cost at any given load. (Remember, alternators respond to load. If there is no load present the alternator is basically freewheeling.)

<CENTER>Amps x Volts = Watts
Watts / 745.7 (one HP) = Electrical HP Produced by the Alternator
HP x 15% Efficiency Loss = HP Loss
HP + HP Loss = Total HP Used</CENTER>

<CENTER>Example:
57A x 14.9V = 849.3 Watts
849.3 Watts / 745.7 = 1.14 HP
1.14 HP x 15% = 0.17 HP
1.14 + 0.17 = 1.31 HP Total</CENTER>
Now we know the cost to run the electrical system. The most important question is what is the payback ? Which way does the horsepower benefit you ? How much horsepower are you currently losing because of low electrical system voltage ?

Cadillac

10-04-2008, 01:33 PM

Cadilac, do you have a link to the nasa papper? I dont recall the heat part. I think we may be talking about two different things. :)

It looks as though I should have been looking at the chart a little better because it does support what RMForbes was saying to a certain extent. Look on page 25. I think I said 28 orginally.

With no addition of hydrogen 52 hp is lost to the cooling system, 68 hp is lost to the exhaust and this indicates 47 hp.

Now with hydrogen addition on the same chart 56 hp is lost to the cooling system, only 43 hp is lost to the exhaust and this indicates 50 hp.

Overall a 3 HP gain in this lean running condition in comparison to just gas alone. A 4 hp negative lose in the cooling system. A huge 25 hp difference in the exhaust system. I guess I am wondering why this is not translated over better to the indicated HP.

Here is the link. (ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf) Although the leaner you go on the chart the less of a difference the exhaust makes in the end they are almost equal. The cooling system does take more power with the addition of hydrogen. I am guessing when I say the flame speed allows the heat to transfer into the metal of the cylinder walls a little to well.

Clipper

10-04-2008, 09:26 PM

Hi, Dane,

You are not quite correct in your observations about the car's alternator and where the energy comes from to run the HHO generator. I had to read and re-read your post for a long time before I figured out exactly why.

You are running your cars generator anyhow! The generators in most cases are able to produce nearly twice the electrical energy you car needs

Correct...but the key words here are "IS ABLE TO PRODUCE..."

Energy that is produced by the alternator, is either used, or wasted, as the alternator can not be turned off, while the car engine is running. While it's true you can dump energy it produces, you still use a portion of your fuel bill to turn the alternator.

The HHO generators are only using current that has already been produced, and that enery would ordinarilly, would go to waste, if it was not used.

Not quite correct.

The alternator is NOT always producing its' full rated output.

Energy does not just disappear...WASTED energy is simply transformed into another form, usually heat. Wasted electrical energy in your HHO generator shows up as heat; wasted mechanical energy usually shows up as frictional heat, etc.

In the case of the electrical output of the generator, if you were constantly producing 90 amps and using only 15, you would have to have one HELL of a big heat sink to get rid of the "waste."

At any given time, your alternator only produces what is being demanded of it, by the ignition system, lights, or whatever else you have running. If your batteries are being charged, and your ignition system is running, and the radio is running, and the whole load totals 5 amps, then your 90-amp alternator is putting out 5 amps. If you suddenly turn on the headlights and taillights, and they draw 10 amps, then your alternator will put out 15 amps. Your engine will have to work a little harder to produce the extra amperage, and you will have to step on the gas a little bit harder. (Though it will be imperceptible to you.)

Here is a good example: I work on boats for a living. One of the things I do is to load-test the generator on the boat. A generator is governed to run at a certain speed...usually 1200, 1800, 2400 or 3600 rpm on a boat. These are multiples of 60, and that allows the power to remain at the right frequency...60 Hz.

Let's say I have the generator running and I have a bunch of things turned on (like an electric stove, battery charger, lights, etc.) totalling 20 amps. Suddenly I turn on the water heater, which draws another 10 amps. You will audibly hear the generator slow down for a second or two, then return to it's previous RPM. What has happened is that the load caused the RPM to drop, because the engine is not putting out enough HP to handle the extra load. The governor senses the drop in rpm and gives the engine a "little more gas" to produce more HP, to maintain the proper RPM. The generator is now producing 30 amps instead of 20, even though it *might* be capable of producing 50 amps. But because it is producing half-again more power, the fuel consumption is higher.

A boat generator might have a 10-HP engine, and when you add 2 HP to the load, you must give it substantially more throttle to maintain the RPM. In your 100+ HP car, you might add 1/2 HP to the load, and the throttle you must add will be almost imperceptible to your right foot. But make no mistake; it WILL cost you more fuel, however slight, to run your alternator at a higher output. Just like your fuel consumption goes up when you run your air conditioner, running that HHO generator WILL cost you a little bit in fuel.

That said, the original naysayer post IS full of crap. He IS correct about all the losses. What he fails to admit, however, is that the hydrogen produced WILL cause the main (gasoline or diesel) fuel charge to burn much more quickly and more thoroughly, putting out MORE HP and torque per unit of fuel burned...conversely, using LESS fuel to put out the same HP or torque.
Which MORE than overcomes the extra fuel spent to generate the extra current to run the HHO generator.

In adding the HHO, you are adding an accelerant to the fuel...the analogy would be adding charcoal starter to a campfire, or spraying gasoline on a grassfire...hydrocarbon atoms are big, ugly, long, complex chains that are relatively difficult to crack into smaller chains, and using an accelerant to start them burning all over the cylinder at once DOES enhance the speed and thoroughness of the burn.

If the speed at which the flame advances across the fuel charge increases significantly, then peak cylinder pressures will be higher, causing a higher mean effective cylinder pressure, and pressure is what drives the piston downward. Peak pressures are also reached sooner during the combustion event, yielding a longer effective power stroke, and thus more torque and/or horsepower per unit of fuel burned.

H2OPWR

10-04-2008, 11:48 PM

Clipper, VERY WELL SPOKEN.

Clipper

10-07-2008, 07:16 AM

Clipper, VERY WELL SPOKEN.

Thanks...I went back and read the original Naysayer's treatise, to figure out specifically what HIS fallacious argument is, and here it is, in a nutshell:

"Adding oxygen and hydrogen to the input gas stream --snip-- CAN NOT produce more energy than is put in... --snip-- The law of conservation of energy will beat you every time.”

Our Mister Naysayer suffers from a specific misconception; what I call the "2nd Law" Misconception. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that nothing is 100 percent efficient...and he is actually correct in this assumption. You DO use more BTU's of fuel to produce the HHO gas than the actual BTU's of hydroxy gas that comes out of the generator.

Adding oxygen and hydrogen to the input gas stream DOES NOT improve the efficiency of the gasoline burn

This is where he gets it wrong; in his ASSUMPTIONS about efficiency.
(more on the word "assumptions" in a moment.)

There are numerous different kinds of efficiency in physics and mechanics...combustion efficiency, thermal efficiency, mechanical efficiency...but I think the kind of efficiency he's talking about is overall thermal efficiency. That is, how many horsepower-hours of work one gets out of a mechanical system (like an engine and drive train, measured at the rear wheels) per unit of heat you put in (measured, in this case, in gallons of fuel, pounds of fuel, or potential BTU's of fuel.)

There is a large and credible body of research evidence, from university, private and military research labs, available all over the internet, indicating that thermal efficiency IS enhanced considerably by the introduction of small amounts of hydroxy gas into the air intake stream.

In addition, there is a large body of evidence which I would consider "anecdotal," right here on THIS website and others like it.
Anecdotal evidence (by definition) tends to be more disorganized, and less consistent in terms of methodology and measurement.
But it may nonetheless be useful as "real-world testing" and practical application of the designs and ideas contained on a forum such as this.
Anecdotal evidence must be scrutinized a bit more than published laboratory results, using a number of criteria.
First and foremost among these criteria (in my opinion) is:
What is the motivation of the poster of the evidence?
Is he trying to sell me something?
Or blindly promoting the technology for some other self-serving reason?

In my opinion, forums like this, which are virtually uncensored, are VERY credible.
(With due respects to the moderators, what I mean is that the forum is not censored as to a particular commercial system, system design, or set of ideas)
We are all here to share ideas, designs, and results...positive AND negative, with virtually no censoring of ideas.
There is no "agenda" but to share information and learn from each other, including others' mistakes.
In addition, unlike published laboratory results, the claimant can be questioned and "challenged" as to his methodology, measurement techniques, and asked for more evidence, or to PRODUCE more evidence, of an inconsistent claim.
Which leads us back to our Mister Naysayer:

You have thrown your money away if you think this will work.
I look forward to seeing how you convince yourself that this is working, but I predict that you will be rather disappointed. ”

Interesting prediction...based on what? Where is your evidence?
Or is this just pure, straight conjecture...an assumption?

And what would be your motivation for getting on a forum like this and posting these unsubstantiated assumptions?
Are you really, truly, altruistically just trying to save us money?

My guess is that you are one of "those people" who just like to stir up SHlT...every forum has one or two.
I could make conjectures as to your peculiar psychology or upbringing, but they would have no practical purpose...I will let your statements stand on their own, against my rebuttal, as evidence of whatever psychopathy you might be afflicted with.

Looking forward to YOUR rebuttal... and please don't forget to include some EVIDENCE of your claims this time, if you have any.

DaneDHorstead

10-07-2008, 01:03 PM

Clipper;

I am not in argument with your words, in any respect, and note that I did not say that the alternator "is" putting out, but instead reflected on it's capability of producing.

No energy (power) is produced, without expending energy, in one way or another! But in the case of HHO, we gain advantage through the efficency of the burn, in that it is quicker, and more completely consumes the gasoline (the primary fuel). This is very comparable to a dramatic rise in octane levels. Perhaps it is a poor way to describe it, but the end result, speaks for itself.

The hotter, quicker burn, also will cause the engine to run cooler, which I'm certain is quite surprising to many people.

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction: Quicker heat, equals a quicker cooling, in addition to a more powerful piston stroke, and less resistance in the return stroke.

Without the added HHO, the more efficient "gasoline burn", is not realized, and the engine runs in it's intended (half assed engineered) inefficiency! Some engines only use 40% or even less, of the gasoline we put into them, while the far heavier percentage goes to waste, or is consumed in the catalytic converter (if it works).

Adding as little as 2 or 3% HHO, can cause the burn to consume 80% or better, of the gasoline, in the power stroke of the engine.

This is a cause and effect, which was enabled by the added HHO (approximately 3% by volume), which can realize the far greater burn ratio, of the purchased liquid fuel.

The added 3% HHO, is the cause, but is not the actual fuel that provides the explosive power gain. The power gain, is provided by the heavier percentage of the gasoline burn, with less wasted effiency. The HHO in effect changed the flashpoint of the burn, and the overall speed, of the burn.

My point with the alternator, is simply "it's there, so why not use it to its potential?"

I had no intent to imply there was no cost to using it. Absolutely nothing in this world, is completely free of cost!

Clipper

10-07-2008, 01:45 PM

Hi, Dane,

Please accept my apologies, too...it's just that I was a little unclear what you meant by the 20/40/60% and "energy produced by the alternator is wasted" statements below. Just trying to clarify, for everybody's benefit.

Your alternator, is not equipped with a switch, to produce 20% of its possible effiency, or 40, to 60%...
Truth is, the alternator has only one control, as so does your engine. It's either on, or it's off! Energy that is produced by the alternator, is either used, or wasted, as the alternator can not be turned off, while the car engine is running. While it's true you can dump energy it produces, you still use a portion of your fuel bill to turn the alternator.

And yup, we are in TOTAL agreement about the effect on the burn of the main fuel charge in the cylinder.

Now let's all hold hands and sing "Kum-ba-yah..." :rolleyes: :p

DaneDHorstead

10-07-2008, 02:14 PM

Clipper;

I don't think there is any argument here, whatsoever.

All I meant is that there is no On/Off switch on the alternator, or even a dial indicator, such as you have on your radio volume, or even on your MAP enhancer.

With a dial, you can get 20%, 40%, 60%, or more, of almost whatever you want, provided you are willing to input the agreed price, for the end result...........

With HHO, you create a machine, that allows you to feed it with nickles at one end, and it yields dollars (in MPG bennifits) at the other!

That sounds like a damned nice machine, to have! In fact, I'll take two!

And, believe me, you don't want to hear me sing!

DaneDHorstead

10-07-2008, 02:37 PM

And, there is no need to appologise!

We don't dissagree, at all, and even if we did, both of us, have the right to state their opinions.

One of the unfortunate things about these forums, is that it puts statements made by the uneducated, up against the highly educated, and few people know, who comes from what background. While the school of hard knocks, is perhaps one of the best educations one can get, it does not prepare you to debate with a physist.

One of the great things about this forum, is that it can indeed, put you in touch with a physist!

I am not a formally educated man, but I usually know what works, when I run into it.

I make my living working with electric, and have for nearly 50 (working) years, so it's evident I am not a young man. But, it also is impossible to reach this age, without having learned some things, along the way.

The school of hard knocks, is in some ways, perhaps the best education, as when you learn something, you usually don't forget it!

IronBear

10-08-2008, 11:44 AM

Adding as little as 2 or 3% HHO, can cause the burn to consume 80% or better, of the gasoline, in the power stroke of the engine.

Is there a link to this study or fact? I have been trying to do research into this and I find very few actual studies, but a lot of "I heard that..."

Not trying to troll or insult, just trying to dig down to bedrock so I can draw some legitimate conclusions. Seems like there is a noted lack of documented evidence and I think this may be why some folks dont take this seriously.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks
IronBear

DaneDHorstead

10-08-2008, 02:12 PM

IronBear

10-08-2008, 02:48 PM

If we are going to legitimize this, then we need to start backing up our sweat with some facts.

I will be grateful to anyone who can bring proof to the theory.

Clipper

10-10-2008, 04:58 PM

Is there a link to this study or fact? I have been trying to do research into this and I find very few actual studies, but a lot of "I heard that..."

Not trying to troll or insult, just trying to dig down to bedrock so I can draw some legitimate conclusions. Seems like there is a noted lack of documented evidence and I think this may be why some folks dont take this seriously.

Any help is appreciated.

Thanks
IronBear

Hi, Bear,

Good question.

Aside from the first-person anecdotal evidence on forums like this, there are a BUNCH of studies on the subject.

Here is a good starting point, if you want to do the research:

http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Goverment_press_releases.html

Now granted, this is a website that sells HHO generators.
But he cites specific people, conferences and studies, most of which could be verified (or not) if you want to do the legwork, such as:

-- John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology

-- F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab

-- George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor

-- Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association

-- At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, June 26-29, 1995, a group of scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK,

-- an international conference held by the University of Calgary, a team of scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China,

-- California Environmental Engineering (CEE)

-- The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab

-- Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

-- Corrections Canada's, Bowden Alberta Institution

-- A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974

-- A recent study at the University of Calgary by G.A. Karim

-- Dr. Brant Peppley, Hydrogen Systems Group, Royal Military College, Kingston

Roland Jacques

10-10-2008, 08:51 PM

Hi, Bear,

Good question.

Aside from the first-person anecdotal evidence on forums like this, there are a BUNCH of studies on the subject.

Here is a good starting point, if you want to do the research:

http://www.hydrofuelsolutions.com/Goverment_press_releases.html

Now granted, this is a website that sells HHO generators.
But he cites specific people, conferences and studies, most of which could be verified (or not) if you want to do the legwork, such as:

-- John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology

-- F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab

-- George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor

-- Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association

-- At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, June 26-29, 1995, a group of scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK,

-- an international conference held by the University of Calgary, a team of scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China,

-- California Environmental Engineering (CEE)

-- The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab

-- Northern Alberta Institute of Technology.

-- Corrections Canada's, Bowden Alberta Institution

-- A study by the California Institute of Technology, at its Jet Propulsion Lab Pasadena, in 1974

-- A recent study at the University of Calgary by G.A. Karim

-- Dr. Brant Peppley, Hydrogen Systems Group, Royal Military College, Kingston

Great list!! I think ive seen a couple not on that list, but you'ld think thats enough.

Scooterdog

10-11-2008, 02:05 PM

No study that I am aware of, just conclusions drawn on reports of MPG increases.

There are far too many inconsistancies to say one vehicle will do the same as another, but there are undeniable advantages delivered by a small HHO presence, in the burn.

How the ICE, uses the faster, more complete burn, depends on it's overall condition, compression, etc.

Anyone making a claim that they have improved mpg using this scam, are part of the scam. Not one credible scientist, automotive technician, or engineer has supported this nonsense.

Clipper

10-14-2008, 05:33 AM

Anyone making a claim that they have improved mpg using this scam, are part of the scam. Not one credible scientist, automotive technician, or engineer has supported this nonsense.

Thanks for your opinion, Dog.
Have any evidence to back that up?

Incidentally, please tell me something: what is your motivation in coming to a forum such as this, where we share research and information, and voicing such negative opinions?

What do you care if we pi$$ away our hard-earned money on this HHO stuff?
What's in it for YOU, to keep reminding us how stupid you think we are?

Why don't you "hang around" on other forums, with other like-minded people, and "preach to the choir," so to speak?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Clipper

10-14-2008, 06:15 AM

Incidentally, Dane, your numbers are a little off:

Adding as little as 2 or 3% HHO, can cause the burn to consume 80% or better, of the gasoline, in the power stroke of the engine.

I did the math:

My engine is a 6.5-liter, at freeway speeds it is turning about 2000 RPM.

In a 4-stroke engine, one intake stroke occurs in each cylinder every two revolutions, therefore 1000 times per minute the engine is theoretically sucking 6.5 liters of air. So theoretically, 6500 liters per minute, not counting fluid-flow losses, or the extra air the turbo packs in (boost on a stock 6.5 is very low.)

At first, I was looking at the "Hydro Super 2" double unit.
This unit claims 3.7 to 4.2 liters per minute, about 60% of 6.5 liters.

SO the amount of HHO gas introduced is roughly 60% of 1/1000'th of the air moving through the engine.
So the total amount of HHO gas introduced is only roughly 60/10,000's (0.0006) of the air, or in percentages, 0.06%.

If you assume that most HHO generators put out about 1-1.5 liters per minute,
the percentage (0.06%) would be the same if the engine were about 1.5-2.2 liters.

The actual percentage depends, of course, on the RPM, engine size, and HHO generator output, any turbo boost, etc.
But I think it's safe to say that for MOST HHO installations, the percentage is going to be a few hundredths of one percent...nowhere near 2-3%.

Incidentally, the hydrolysis ratio for water is about 1250:1.
So if you're producing roughly a gallon (4 liters) of hydrogen per minute, or 60gallons per hour,
you're going to use roughly a gallon of water in 20 hours of run time.

And as for your "80% of fuel consumed" number, that's a little off, too...though I see where it comes from.

What you're talking about is thermal efficiency...the actual units of energy that the engine produces, (usually expressed in HP or mpg) as a percentage of the potential energy (heat content, usually expressed in BTU's) of the fuel.

From Wikipedia:
...a typical gasoline automobile engine operates at around 25% thermal efficiency...

And from my engineering studies, I remember that the best diesels average about 30-35% thermal efficiency.

The very best average results that I've seen on this site and on other sites seems to center around about doubling your mileage...in other words, increasing your thermal efficiency by about 100%. So with a gasoline engine, you might increase from 25%, to close to 50% thermal efficiency at best. Remarkable in any case, but nowhere near the 80% you are saying. I see where you got the 80% figure, though; you started with a (faulty) assumption of 40% thermal efficiency and doubled it.

Incidentally, the most efficient engine (outside of a test lab) is now believed to be a big Sulzer ship engine, at just over 50%.
Five stories tall, 90 feet long and 110,000 HP.
Here is a link:
http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/

Clipper

10-14-2008, 06:45 AM

Anyone making a claim that they have improved mpg using this scam, are part of the scam. Not one credible scientist, automotive technician, or engineer has supported this nonsense.

You know, you're right, Dog.

The CEE seems particularly shady:

http://www.dieselnet.com/cee/
http://www.ceecalif.com/

Addressing the needs of Emission researchers and Testing products for OEM’s, EO, CARB, EPA:

As an independent emissions laboratory let CEE test your idea, device, or product to meet EPA and CARB requirements. CEE is a leader in obtaining EO's from CARB to allow manufacturers to sell their products in the U.S. market. CEE is a qualified test laboratory and has been testing products for over 25 years.

This fully automated test cell can be yours for any use. CEE has many engines to choose from. You are welcome to bring your own engine.
--ISO 8178 Testing OFF Road
--13 Mode, 8 Mode, Custom Test
--Up to 2000 BHP
--Long term rental available
--CARB Certified
--Combustion air conditioning

CEE is located in Santa Ana, California, 40 km South of Los Angeles International Airport.
CEE has a 150,000 sq/ft a facility located on 10 acres of land, designated as a free trade zone.
The property is utilized for R&D and engine and emission testing to world standards.
CEE is licensed by EPA and CARB to test Diesel, Gasoline, CNG, LNG, for Trucks, Automobile, Stationary Engines, Motorcycles, SORE, OEM, Aftermarket Suppliers on both Engine or Chassis Dynamometers.

California Environmental Engineering is a major emission laboratory committed to developing products and increasing services to accommodate customers needs and continually striving to keep in front of new emission regulations.

California Environmental Engineering, a California Corporation, has an extensive background in specialized vehicle procurement, restorative maintenance, emission testing, and data management. CEE routinely conducts over 2500 emission tests per year and performs over 1000 vehicle procurements.

As a major EPA-recognized and CARB-Certified mobile source emissions laboratory, CEE is continually upgrading its testing facilities and equipment in response to changing regulatory mandates and vehicle technology.

CEE clients include major domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers, suppliers, oil companies, and government agencies. CEE has both the experience and flexibility to create unique programs to meet a wide range of client specifications.

CEE was formed to provide timely and professional support in areas related to environmental research. CEE is an official State 'smog' station (outlet) for mobile emissions testing and repair as approved by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).

Through the efforts of its key personnel and general staff, CEE has become intimately involved in California air pollution programs over the past fifteen years.

Here at CEE, we are proud to work with some of the most well known companies throughout the world:

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (CARB)
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA
MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA (VW/AUDI)
BMW-ENGINEERING
MAHLE
HONEYWELL
AMERICAN BIO-FUELS
WEST COAST BIO-FUELS
BIO-FRIENDLY CORPORATION
386NANO TECH, INC.

You, Dog, and YOUR claims, are MUCH more credible than those shady CEE people....

Keep up the good work!!! :confused:

Stevo

10-14-2008, 09:02 AM

Anyone making a claim that they have improved mpg using this scam, are part of the scam. Not one credible scientist, automotive technician, or engineer has supported this nonsense.

Wow, quite the departure from your first statement in a similar thread huh?

From: "Does HHO Work"

Sure, it will work. But, the problem I see (I have a degree in Automotive Technology, 3 months from my Masters) is that 99.9% of the people making claims, are just clueless as to how things work...

Scooterdog

10-14-2008, 07:17 PM

You know, you're right, Dog.

The CEE seems particularly shady:

http://www.dieselnet.com/cee/
http://www.ceecalif.com/

Addressing the needs of Emission researchers and Testing products for OEM’s, EO, CARB, EPA:

As an independent emissions laboratory let CEE test your idea, device, or product to meet EPA and CARB requirements. CEE is a leader in obtaining EO's from CARB to allow manufacturers to sell their products in the U.S. market. CEE is a qualified test laboratory and has been testing products for over 25 years.

This fully automated test cell can be yours for any use. CEE has many engines to choose from. You are welcome to bring your own engine.
--ISO 8178 Testing OFF Road
--13 Mode, 8 Mode, Custom Test
--Up to 2000 BHP
--Long term rental available
--CARB Certified
--Combustion air conditioning

CEE is located in Santa Ana, California, 40 km South of Los Angeles International Airport.
CEE has a 150,000 sq/ft a facility located on 10 acres of land, designated as a free trade zone.
The property is utilized for R&D and engine and emission testing to world standards.
CEE is licensed by EPA and CARB to test Diesel, Gasoline, CNG, LNG, for Trucks, Automobile, Stationary Engines, Motorcycles, SORE, OEM, Aftermarket Suppliers on both Engine or Chassis Dynamometers.

California Environmental Engineering is a major emission laboratory committed to developing products and increasing services to accommodate customers needs and continually striving to keep in front of new emission regulations.

California Environmental Engineering, a California Corporation, has an extensive background in specialized vehicle procurement, restorative maintenance, emission testing, and data management. CEE routinely conducts over 2500 emission tests per year and performs over 1000 vehicle procurements.

As a major EPA-recognized and CARB-Certified mobile source emissions laboratory, CEE is continually upgrading its testing facilities and equipment in response to changing regulatory mandates and vehicle technology.

CEE clients include major domestic and foreign automotive manufacturers, suppliers, oil companies, and government agencies. CEE has both the experience and flexibility to create unique programs to meet a wide range of client specifications.

CEE was formed to provide timely and professional support in areas related to environmental research. CEE is an official State 'smog' station (outlet) for mobile emissions testing and repair as approved by the California Bureau of Automotive Repair (BAR).

Through the efforts of its key personnel and general staff, CEE has become intimately involved in California air pollution programs over the past fifteen years.

Here at CEE, we are proud to work with some of the most well known companies throughout the world:

CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD (CARB)
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA
MITSUBISHI MOTORS CORPORATION
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA (VW/AUDI)
BMW-ENGINEERING
MAHLE
HONEYWELL
AMERICAN BIO-FUELS
WEST COAST BIO-FUELS
BIO-FRIENDLY CORPORATION
386NANO TECH, INC.

You, Dog, and YOUR claims, are MUCH more credible than those shady CEE people....

Keep up the good work!!! :confused:

Not one mention of hho lol.

Scooterdog

10-14-2008, 07:17 PM

Wow, quite the departure from your first statement in a similar thread huh?

From: "Does HHO Work"

It won't work as the scammers claim.

pj91gsx

10-14-2008, 07:30 PM

It won't work as the scammers claim.
think about this, for every 10 amps of power used it takes .4 miles off you mpgs. a booster uses less than 20 amps. so all you have to do is get more than .8 mpgs and you have success. though many other people have gotten greater success. Some first trials will get about +5 some will increase more than that. The motors that waste the most gas make the most improvements.

Scooterdog

10-14-2008, 07:57 PM

think about this, for every 10 amps of power used it takes .4 miles off you mpgs. a booster uses less than 20 amps. so all you have to do is get more than .8 mpgs and you have success. though many other people have gotten greater success. Some first trials will get about +5 some will increase more than that. The motors that waste the most gas make the most improvements.

that is crazy. I've already post the math on this web site, find it, then come back and we'll see. You are dead wrong. I don't know where you dreamed up that formula, WOW.

Painless

10-14-2008, 09:40 PM

Stevo

10-14-2008, 09:46 PM

It won't work as the scammers claim.

Could you give an example of "how the scammers claim" vs. "how you think it will work" without telling me I am wrong or I am a scam artist or some caca like that? Could you *finally* explain your point and where you think it *would* work. I just want your unbiased point of view, which you haven't given yet without saying somebody is "wrong" or a "scam artist" or "dumbass", ect. Really, that's what ****es people off the most and makes them your enemy. It also makes you look like a child in need of anger management or maybe just attention.

Scooterdog

10-14-2008, 09:49 PM

News 4 blows the bogus water4cash out of the water!:

Now, three weeks later, the final test results are in.

"No. It did not improve mileage," said Sumner Huckaby, Dean of Greenville Tech's Center for Automotive Technology.

In fact, officials said they noticed a mileage decrease after installing the water4gas device.

" It dropped 2 miles per gallon," said automotive instructor Preston Howard.

The results are sure to disappoint thousands of News 4 viewers, who were hopeful the water4gas system would work.

Scooterdog

10-14-2008, 09:51 PM

Could you give an example of "how the scammers claim" vs. "how you think it will work" without telling me I am wrong or I am a scam artist or some caca like that? Could you *finally* explain your point and where you think it *would* work. I just want your unbiased point of view, which you haven't given yet without saying somebody is "wrong" or a "scam artist" or "dumbass", ect. Really, that's what ****es people off the most and makes them your enemy. It also makes you look like a child in need of anger management or maybe just attention.

I've proved it with math, science, and automotive knowhow. Just because you are to damn lazy to read what I posted, doesn't mean I haven't already debunked this scam.

Stevo

10-14-2008, 10:28 PM

I've proved it with math, science, and automotive knowhow. Just because you are to damn lazy to read what I posted, doesn't mean I haven't already debunked this scam.

that was pathetic as you are.

Stevo

10-14-2008, 10:53 PM

Fellow HHO experimenters and enthusiasts,

I'm definitely not the one who would normally put any input into these kind of discussions, but feel that its time I did.

Why does this unpleasant back and forth argument persist? Scooterdog has his beliefs, whatever reasoning is behind his decision to come to our forum and share them in the way he does is irellevant, we have our beliefs too. Neither he nor us are going to change our minds, that much is obvious, he will insist it doesn't work and we will insist that it does. When the irresistable force meets the immovable object, everything stays the same.

Discussion of a topic is one thing, but when that discussion uses personal attacks it ceases to be a discussion of fact. The threads that contain these arguments are nothing more than a testimonial for anti-HHO pushers to point out to others as another reason for their discredit.

Let's get back to the reason that this forum was formed, to fascilitate the production of HHO for the common folk. I'm a patient guy, but I get tired of seeing threads getting taken over with these pointless arguments that will never result in a win for either side. Let's not have this as a bad example for new visitors to our forum to see and pass us by.

Russ.

Painless,

Here's the problem. This person who calls himself Scooterdog believes that he can enter this forum and post comments that are offending and disrespectful to others. Basically everyone besides himself. That is what bothers me. I really don't care whether he believes HHO works or not. He could get hit by a Mac truck tomorrow and I wouldn't miss his opinion, BUT.........

The disrespect MUST stop. And I have reported it and will continue to report it as anyone here should be doing. If the admin refuses to warn him or ban him either temporarily or permanently, then the rules in this forum are voided and I will certainly no longer remain active (as I am sure many others' share my opinion). His rude comments are what **** people off here, not his take on HHO. There is no room for disrespect here.

People with an internet presence like Scooterdog's feel as though they are the "almighty" or "invincible" since the vast internet is covering their true identity. The reality is that they are truly very hollow and insecure and feel that since their real life isn't going the way they planned (admit it or not), that they can make it up by becoming this "unstoppable" alternate internet personality. I am sure Scooterdog acts this way in almost any other web forum he is a part of. As long as the admin allows his type to participate in this forum he will be in control. That's how Sociopaths work. No regard for others.

I'm sure right now he's thinking of a really smart ass remark to include in his reply. Something to the tune of "you are wrong" or "don't be a dumb ass", "don't be a lazy ass", ect.

Scooterdog,

There ARE more constructive ways of grabbing someone's attention. You don't have to be so caustic. :)