So Sick of the Naysayers

[PiTRiFF]

I installed my system and have had it running for about one month. I have not made any modifications other than running the stock system. I have a 95 Jeep Wrangler and have noticed a jump from 15mpg to 22.5mpg.

Upon announcing my first set of results at work I was instantly bombarded with articles on how its not possible for the cells to work. One Coworker explained to me that based on the energy I am using to create Hydrogen I am wasting my time. It is very frustrating to combat these arguments.

The article they sent me is this one.http://green.autoblog.com/2008/08/04/why-on-board-hydrogen-generators-wont-boost-your-mileage/6

I really would like some of your input as to how best shut these guys up.

[Roland Jacques]

That article is completely missed the point of what is happening when you boost with HHO. Bad part is many folks who use HHO boosting dont understand how HHO works. so the debate get very muddy. While the energy loss part stated in that article is for the most part correct. That has nothing to do how this technology CAN increase your gas MPG. .

The way that guy wrote his article. His same reasoning would also apply to refining Gasoline from crude oil. Oil refineries do in fact use a lot of energy to refine gasoline. But they end up with something that burns better in a engine than crude does. By his logic refining crude would be counter-productive( but that is not the case, the energy used to refine is used smartly)

We are also using energy (the Alternator) to further change/refine gasoline so that burns Faster & more completely.
70 % of the energy of gasoline being burned in a I.C.Engine goes out the exhaust or wasted buy heat... By changing or refining gasoline further with HHO, we hope to waste less energy out the exhaust and heat...

[PiTRiFF]

Im considering powering my system with a solar panel. If that is a success then the argument will be worthless

[Roland Jacques]

Im considering powering my system with a solar panel. If that is a success then the argument will be worthless

See you are missing the point also.

It has NOTHING to do with the source of the energy.

[cabrera]

Let's not forget the self proclaimed "Rocket Scientists" that quote the laws of Thermodynamics, Physics, & Conservation.

My answer to them is:

"Like all scientific theories, the laws of physics are incomplete.
The conservation laws are particularly robust. Noether's theorem states that any conservation law can be derived from a corresponding continuous symmetry.
In other words, so long as the laws of physics (not simply the current understanding of them, but the actual laws, which may still be undiscovered) .... Oh but wait, you are a GENIUS and you KNOW that all the laws of physics have been discovered and applied. Oh well I guess this is all you can ever be. How boring. You might as well kill yourself"

Obviously you are on the wrong forum there. Why bother sharing anything with those who spend more time criticizing than experimenting. I would just keep the benefits of my experiment to myself & share them in a forum which can appreciate them.

[PiTRiFF]

I wasnt in another forum. These comments I am getting are from my Co Workers. What do you expect from Network Admins?

[hhonewbie]

Upon announcing my first set of results at work I was instantly bombarded with articles on how its not possible for the cells to work. One Coworker explained to me that based on the energy I am using to create Hydrogen I am wasting my time. It is very frustrating to combat these arguments.

I really would like some of your input as to how best shut these guys up.

Sure the cells/gen might not be energy efficient regardless the increase/improvement in MPG is there. In a nut shell savings$$$ are being made at the pump. Dont be frustrated hold firm to what you know regardless of their arguments which are based on ignorants and miss information. While your saving$$$ on fuel and blowing cleaner emissions their spending more $$$ and blowing more dirty emissions. This might shut them up or spark more interest and open their minds.....

[Philldpapill]

hhonewbie - Please don't say things like that here, or anywhere else in the hho community. That sort of nonsense only hurts the cause. This is NOT one of those "the truth shall set you free" situations - it's a "The laws of physics will prevail" situations. NEVER in science do you "hold firm to what you know regardless of their arguments". HHO is governed by SOME sort of science, is it not? If it is, then you have to remain open minded and expirement and VERIFY to the skeptics your findings. NEVER do you just bulldoze through and call them ignorant for not believing a LACK of knowledge... You sound like a cult member hell bent on converting the world to something that already comes across as flakey. Also, stop it with the "$$$" jibberish. The only places you see people use that sort of "language" are in scams. Like I said, that sort of rhetoric only discredits the real ingenuity going on in this forum.

[Philldpapill]

PitRiFF, as for your results, can you publish them here? I love empirical data. It is the ammunition in the firefight of science. Posting hard data is a million times more convincing than just saying "I got a 50% increase in gas mileage by hooking this gadget up to my car".

POST!

[hhonewbie]

hhonewbie - Please don't say things like that here, or anywhere else in the hho community. That sort of nonsense only hurts the cause. This is NOT one of those "the truth shall set you free" situations - it's a "The laws of physics will prevail" situations. NEVER in science do you "hold firm to what you know regardless of their arguments". HHO is governed by SOME sort of science, is it not? If it is, then you have to remain open minded and expirement and VERIFY to the skeptics your findings. NEVER do you just bulldoze through and call them ignorant for not believing a LACK of knowledge... You sound like a cult member hell bent on converting the world to something that already comes across as flakey. Also, stop it with the "$$$" jibberish. The only places you see people use that sort of "language" are in scams. Like I said, that sort of rhetoric only discredits the real ingenuity going on in this forum.
You lack faith and you fall short because you avoid getting to the point. The science you rely on clouds your mind and only prevents you from progress. You discredit yourself by avoiding and getting to the point. Alot of people dont have as much money as you might have, but its not going to stop them trying to improve MPG and save money at the pump isnt that what its all about when boosting a vehical with HHO

[cabrera]

You lack faith and you fall short because you avoid getting to the point.

I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself! :D
Lack of Faith (http://members.cox.net/sporttrac/stuff/vid/disturbing.wmv)

[PiTRiFF]

All I know is that I am jumping for joy today. According to my Mileage calculator I am avg. 48 miles per gallon on my 1995 Jeep Wrangler. 4 cyl.
Before I installed the system I was under 20. I am using KOH as the electrolyte. Im not done yet!!!!

The difference in my jump from 21 to 48 is attributed to making the following modifications I believe.
Switched from Baking Soda to KOH
Added an Oxygen Sensor Extender
Added A MAP/MAF Sensor
Added a Pulse Width Modulator and Amp Meter.
Added an intake line into the first cell coming out of my air cleaner to bring air into the first cell.

[Philldpapill]

hhonewbie, you're talking like HHO is somehow related to "the force". Faith has absolutely NOTHING to do with Science. Just because I "believe" something should or should not work, has 0% to do with reality. Your view of this whole thing seems like IT is in the clouds...

The purpose of this HHO research isn't simply to "save money at the pump"... Understanding the mechanisms that IMPROVE fuel efficiency is my goal. Learning the SCIENCE behind what is going on, should be everyone's goal - not just saving a little bit of cash. Good god I'm having trouble getting past your first comment - "You lack faith"... Excuse me while I go punch my punching bag repeatedly, for hours on end. That just ****es me off...

Your faith clouds your objectivity. HHO has no regard for your belief system.

[Philldpapill]

PitRiFF, how are you calculating your MPG? Are you filling up, driving an ENTIRE tank, then dividing your miles driven by the gallons you refuel with? Otherwise, if you only drive 50 miles, and use your car's computer to figure MPG, that is horribly inaccurate.

I'd be jumping for joy if you I got a 140% increase in fuel efficiency... I'm sorry to say, but I'm 140% sure you have an error in there. A 20% improvement is amazing - over a 100% improvement seems wrong... Can you post your mechanism for calculating MPG?

[PeteVamped]

I installed my system and have had it running for about one month. I have not made any modifications other than running the stock system. I have a 95 Jeep Wrangler and have noticed a jump from 15mpg to 22.5mpg.

Upon announcing my first set of results at work I was instantly bombarded with articles on how its not possible for the cells to work. One Coworker explained to me that based on the energy I am using to create Hydrogen I am wasting my time. It is very frustrating to combat these arguments.

The article they sent me is this one.http://green.autoblog.com/2008/08/04/why-on-board-hydrogen-generators-wont-boost-your-mileage/6

I really would like some of your input as to how best shut these guys up.I dont have to worry about that one any more. I now have people coming to me to either build them one or place one in there car because they do not know the logistics behind them.

[cabrera]

All I know is that I am jumping for joy today. According to my Mileage calculator I am avg. 48 miles per gallon on my 1995 Jeep Wrangler. 4 cyl.
Before I installed the system I was under 20. I am using KOH as the electrolyte. Im not done yet!!!!

The difference in my jump from 21 to 48 is attributed to making the following modifications I believe.
Switched from Baking Soda to KOH
Added an Oxygen Sensor Extender
Added A MAP/MAF Sensor
Added a Pulse Width Modulator and Amp Meter.
Added an intake line into the first cell coming out of my air cleaner to bring air into the first cell.

Is this a wet or a dry cell?
Also make sure you have flashback protection. An arrestor is an easy build out of pvc, 2 fitting & some bronze wool.
If you are getting that much improvement I personally wouldn't touch a thing. In order to calculate properly fill your tank until the pump clicks off (don't overfill) then drive. Whether city,hwy, or mixed. when you fill up again note your miles driven & fill again until the pump clicks off. This will give you a general idea. It is by no means scientific but it will give you a decent reading. Take into consideration that driving conditions will never be exact as your previous fill and of course your driving habit was not exact, but if you are filling up after driving twice as much, you;re doing great.

[biggy boy]

Two things I'd like to add.

1) To add to cabrera's suggestions, when you fill up always try to use the same pump.
If you get gas at multiple gas stations, the pumps may stop at different amounts due to their setup.
I use an Excel spread sheet to track my mileage.
I recorded three weeks worth of driving before even touching my truck, to make sure the baseline MPG where as accurate as I could get them.

2) I just want to save $$$ on gas :p



.

[hhonewbie]

2) I just want to save $$$ on gas :p .

Same here most of us are.
Money saved at the pump is better spent on the bear nessecities like bills or bread on the table.

[Philldpapill]

I very much agree with BiggyBoy. Keeping all the variables constant(e.g. same pump, preferably same ambient temperature outside so that the same pump cuts off at the same vapor level, etc.) is a must in making accurate measurements. Also, when you make MPG measurements, keep a LARGE sample. Ideally, you would drive like 1,000 miles and keep track of the exact amount of gasoline you put in your car. If you have a large sample, any error that may(will always) be present, will be reduced, thus giving you more accurate results.

As for trying to save money, sure - everyone wants to do that. That's just being efficient in your daily life. The question is HOW are you going to save money? I think we are all on the same page by trying to increase our fuel efficiency. The key to this, however, seems to be where we differ. I want to increase my fuel efficiency by figuring out HOW to increase it. To figure out HOW I increase it, requires that I have at least a basic understanding of what is physically going on that PRODUCES the increase in fuel efficiency.

That is my goal - to understand WHAT is going on, so that I can understand HOW to utilize the phenomenon, so that I can save money for the BEER necessities. That should be our philosphy in life - What, How, Beer - End of story. :D

[biggy boy]

Good point! Philldpapill

For me my main goal is to have fun while I learn about something that I find to be really cool:cool:

In this case it all started by googling how to get better mileage. That is how I came across HHO. This was about a month and A half ago. Since then I have read and read and read as much as I can. I did not know this has been going on for several years now.

You know what? I'm glad I just found out about HHO now, because a lot of the trial and error has been taken care of There is lots of examples on the net of how to make a good system, all by people that have been at this for several years. These pioneers sort of speak have made it relatively easy for me.
There is now well designed and proven designs for cells, PWM, Sensor enhancers and even programmable chips that tell the cars computer to use a different fuel table.

So not only am I able to same on gas money but I am having a fun time learning how all this works.

[Jager]

As to the original topic........ when I show off my system to interested parties, I never claim they will get better gas mileage. What I do point out are the irrefutable benefits of HHO then let them come to their own conclusions. The idea is to defuse the argument before it gets started. The tact I use is better MPH is a logical result of the known benefits.

Some people just love to argue......

Jager

[AlexR]

I installed my system and have had it running for about one month. I have not made any modifications other than running the stock system. I have a 95 Jeep Wrangler and have noticed a jump from 15mpg to 22.5mpg.

Upon announcing my first set of results at work I was instantly bombarded with articles on how its not possible for the cells to work. One Coworker explained to me that based on the energy I am using to create Hydrogen I am wasting my time. It is very frustrating to combat these arguments.

The article they sent me is this one.http://green.autoblog.com/2008/08/04/why-on-board-hydrogen-generators-wont-boost-your-mileage/6

I really would like some of your input as to how best shut these guys up.


I know it can be frustrating talking to people about this.

The main argument about "not getting out the energy you put in, so it doesn't work" is that they are incorrect in the effect Brown's Gas has on combustion.

Brown's Gas is a catalyst in the combustion process. It reduces the endothermic energy required for combustion. BG makes combustion more efficient. This allows more energy to be released from the same amount of fuel, so less fuel can be burned while still making the same amount of power, hence the mileage gain. The additional energy released is more than was required to make the BG.

The key here is the "catalyst" part. While, yes the BG is "burned" in the process and reverts to water, it doesn't directly help to push down the piston during combustion.


Here are more,
"If its so simple and inexpensive then why aren't more people doing it?"
A: Who cares about what other people do? YOU can do it NOW and get better mileage without having the expense of buying a new vehicle for better mileage.


"Why don't the car manufacturers apply this technology at the OEM level?"
A: Car manufactures have never really been interested in mileage, just look at the mileage averages over the years, the gain is minimal.

[Philldpapill]

AlexR, where are you getting the "catalyst" notion from? Do you have some research papers we can read? From everything I understand about chemistry, when a hydrocarbon "combusts" a few things happen.

First, when the molecules are hot enough, the hydrocarbon bonds disassociate into ions of C and H. These ions are now floating around, ready to recombine with any other ions which would take less than or equal to the amount of energy stored in the bonds. When a couple of the H+ ions bump into an Oxygen ion, they don't just bump, they SLAM together, producing H20 and a good bit of heat. The same is true for the CO2, but with far less energy.

The same is true for H2. I'm not sure about how much heat is required to disassociate the atoms, but the process is the same - H+ ions float around and find an O ion, and BAM - energy and H20.

So, I wouldn't say HHO is a catalyst, but I probably haven't read what you've read. From what I can tell, is when we add HHO, we are increasing the ratio of H+ ions and Carbon ions. I think a hydrocarbon chain with more Hydrogen atoms would produce the same result, but gasoline isn't that kind of chain.

What I'm saying is, my theory is that there is some sort of critical point of H to C ratios. Maybe by adding the extra H2 into the combustion, we are reaching that critical point. This might explain why some people aren't getting the gains they "should" be getting - their fuel mixture just hasn't reached the critical point value yet(or maybe went above it).

I'm a science nut and love research articles. So, please, post what you've found. I'd love to read it.


Also, to address your Q & A... Both of those are perfectly valid questions. A correct response to the first one is maybe something like "it's a little techy and complicated and the few people that DO know about this stuff, don't want to bother with a little extra effort. However, your response is just awful. It totally sidesteps their question and REALLY sounds like a car salesman(which usually raises a redflag for SCAM with people).

Your second question, again, is valid. However, again your response isn't the best. A better response is "Car companies ARE researching this. There are a few pure H2 cars out there, but the companies have found those to be too expensive, so they are thinking of doing hybrid gasoline/H2 cars." That response is true, and addresses their question. Car companies ARE interested in gas mileage - as long as it doesn't affect the reliability of the vehicle. I mean, think about it... if Ford came out with a care that got 50MPG, people would flock to it. Chevy would be losing business, so they would have to make a car to compete, and probably get 51 MPG. The truth is, with current understanding of thermodynamics, you just CAN'T increase combustion efficiency with gasoline alone. That's why all of us are on this forum, however.

:)

[AlexR]

Phil,

I'll look for that info.

The catalyst part. When you mention "when the molecules are hot enough" that is where BG does its thing. The heat that is required for the reaction is reduced when BG is involved, but the heat released is the same, so there is a net gain in energy released.



I'd hardly say my answer is "awful" A long winded 5 minute answer tends to have peoples eyes gloss over. But also telling them its too techy for them is talking down to them, and people don't like that.

As to the 2nd question, Car companies have been buying fuel saving patents for yearts and shelving them. I've personally talked to two separate people who were involved a car company buying their patent.

[biggy boy]

AlexR, What I'm saying is, my theory is that there is some sort of critical point of H to C ratios. Maybe by adding the extra H2 into the combustion, we are reaching that critical point. This might explain why some people aren't getting the gains they "should" be getting - their fuel mixture just hasn't reached the critical point value yet(or maybe went above it).

I guess we do not know what this ratio is and therefore would need to
experiment to find it?
And I would guess it would be different from vehicle to vehicle?


Would make sense then to use a PWM and slowly bring up the HHO generators production (L/minute) to find that correct ratio that works for your given vehicle?
This method of testing would take some time but in the long run would be better would it not?
Produce
small quantities of gas, test mileage, raise
the gas output..... until the max efficiency is attained, instead of just jamming as much gas into the intake as possible.

Glen

[Philldpapill]

Agreed, Glen - 100%.

AlexR, no. What I was talking about has NOTHING to do with any catalysts. HHO is not a magical catalyst. H2, without any heat, does absolutely nothing. However, when you burn the H2 with the gasoline, then something happens. From that, you must conclude that the hydrogen must be disassociated to begin with. If that is that case, then the molecules have ALREADY been disassociated in the first place. If that's the case, then H2 does zilch for reducing the heat of reaction for gasoline. Besides, what you are talking about doesn't do anything for the end result. If you are still getting the same amount of energy OUT per unit of gasoline, then the amount of energy IN doesn't even matter... Are you saying that the hydrocarbons start to react at lower temperatures, with the addition of HHO? Again, if that is the case, then it just doesn't matter... There is zero energy stored in H20, and zero stored in CO2. Because there is no energy stored in the products of the reaction, ALL of the energy goes into heat... But you said there is the same amount of energy released. It's just contradictory.

As for the questions - You think "Who cares what other people are doing" isn't condecending??? Saying "most people find it too techy" is saying something about someone's actions... It's not talking down to them at all. If you can't spend 5 minutes to explain the subject, then why are you even talking to this person about the subject? If the person disagreed with you in the first place, I'm sure they'd like an explaination other than "it's just magic and saves you money!!!".

2nd Q - Yes, Auto companies have loads of patents. That's what you do... Contrary to what many people think, a patent doesn't do anything... It just says "I thought of it first". It doesn't mean what you thought of has any meaning or value(e.g. all the "super advanced" scribblings of Stan Meyers' patents). Car companies grab patents left and right, hoping that the next one will make it huge. You really think they discover an amazing thing, and just say "nah... I'll pass and just keep selling the same car, rather than gaining 20% more market share"... If you seriously believe car companies are conspiring against us all, rather than striving for market shar - what planet are you from?

[AlexR]

I guess we do not know what this ratio is and therefore would need to
experiment to find it?
And I would guess it would be different from vehicle to vehicle?


Would make sense then to use a PWM and slowly bring up the HHO generators production (L/minute) to find that correct ratio that works for your given vehicle?
This method of testing would take some time but in the long run would be better would it not?
Produce
small quantities of gas, test mileage, raise
the gas output..... until the max efficiency is attained, instead of just jamming as much gas into the intake as possible.

Glen

Glen,

yes, that would be a good way to find the ideal amount of gas for your application. In theory the same amount of gas would be used for engines of the same displacement.

[biggy boy]

There are several theories out there that car companies are being payed
off by large oil companies or oil barons, giving millions of dollars in pay offs.
Or the other one is the car companies have investments in the oil companies.

I'm not saying I believe this to be true, cuz I don't have the facts to make that decision or statement.

Anyway I personally think both of you have good points of merritt! :)
And that the topic is interesting.

I've also heard the "statement" several time, that the HHO acts as a catalyst, helping the gasoline to be more flammable/burn more completely. That less of the fuel is being wasted and sent out to be burnt in the catalytic converter.

Glen

[biggy boy]

Found this definition of a catalyst:
From here http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-catalyst.htm

For any process to occur, energy, known as activation energy is required . Without the help of a catalyst the amount of energy needed to spark a particular reaction is high. When the catalyst is present the activation energy is lowered making the reaction happen more efficiently. The catalyst generally works by either changing the structure of a molecule or by bonding to reactant molecules causing them to combine, react and release a product or energy. For example, a catalyst is required for oxygen and hydrogen gases to combine and form water.

Without the help of a catalyst, chemical reactions might never occur or take a significantly longer period of time to react. When the chemical reaction occurs, the catalyst itself is not changed and is not part of the end result. Most times the catalyst can be reused over and over in subsequent reactions.

Sometimes instead of accelerating a reaction, a catalyst works to slow a reaction that would normally not occur or occur very slowly. This type of substance is a negative catalyst which is also referred to as an inhibitor. Negative catalysts are important in medicine where inhibitors are critical in treating mental illnesses, high blood pressure, cancer and a myriad of other health problems.

A catalyst is used in two types of conditions, either chemical or biochemical. The most common catalyst in biochemical reactions are enzymes. Enzymes are highly specialized proteins which accelerate specific chemical reactions. These catalysts make life possible. For example an enzyme found in saliva breaks up food for digestion on contact. With out this catalyst it would take weeks for us to digest our food.

Catalysts are also important in the laboratory as well as in manufacturing and industry. One of the most famous catalysts is the catalytic converter which helps to prevent automobile emissions and make fuel consumption more efficient. Fertilizers are also catalysts which speed up plant growth.

[AlexR]

Philldpapill,

I just don't understand your response to my post. You immediately jump all over virtually every word I write while the Q and A part I wrote was based on MY opinion and what I would say. It's that - opinion - my viewpoint.

It seems like you are angry at me for posting a viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours.

I find it interesting that I post a concept of how Brown's Gas possibly works and you tell me I'm wrong.

You have a theory of your own with no hard facts to back it up. Hey - that's OK. I understand that research begins with a working theory - then you do experiments. The results will either prove or disprove your theory. But just because you have a theory doesn't make any other ideas/concepts/whatever wrong.

[AlexR]

Found this definition of a catalyst:
From here http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-catalyst.htm


Glen,

That's a great explanation of a catalyst, thanks for posting it.

[Philldpapill]

...Hydrogen is not a catalyst for Hydrogen. Hydrogen is what you "burn" an a hydrocarbon reaction. The heat(a spark or "fire) ionizes the atoms in the gasoline molecules. From that, there is NO difference between the hydrogen ions from the gasoline, and the hydrogen ions from the HHO. What you are implying, is that the flashpoint of the gasoline is lower with the addition of HHO gas(without a spark yet)? That's just not true. If you are implying that the ionized Hydrogen(when combustion begins and the molecules are heated, and thus ionized) is lowering the flashpoint, again - just not true due to my previous point about HHO H+ having no difference than the gasoline H+.

If you want to start a new thread, I'd like to discuss this subject of WHAT really is going on. I for one, believe there IS indeed something going on, but I'd like to discuss just what that is.

[Philldpapill]

Sorry, didn't read your 2nd to last post on the previous page. I'm not trying to jump all over you about it. It's just that your theory doesn't seem to be based on something logical(read previous post before this one). The theory I have, I think at least, is based on logic and already understood scientific principles.

I understand those are your opinions, but it bugs me when I talk to someone about this and they laugh at me. They don't laugh at me because what I'm saying - they laugh at me because of the crackpots that they have heard ABOUT this subject. In other words, yes, it does get to me a little when I hear someone on here just spewing absolute non-sense about this stuff, and sometimes outright calling physics a big fraud. I don't mean you, in particular, but when someone makes claims based on nothing more than a theory that "sounds cool and high tech". I appologize if my statements sound personal. I don't mean to climb all over YOU, just theories I know to be logically and scientifically incorrect.

[biggy boy]

If you want to start a new thread, I'd like to discuss this subject of WHAT really is going on. I for one, believe there IS indeed something going on, but I'd like to discuss just what that is.

Ok lets go for it :) sounds like fun.

Start one up and I'll be there!

Glen

[biggy boy]

Jeez I though the HHO made the flash point of gasoline higher not lower!?!?

[Philldpapill]

Thread started: HHO/MPG Theory Debate (http://www.hhoforums.com/showthread.php?t=5046)

[gizzy]

Jeez I though the HHO made the flash point of gasoline higher not lower!?!?

Here's a good one to try if you dare. Get a bucket of water and put some soap in it. Put your bubbler tube in the bucket. Let the bubbles accumulate for a few seconds. Get a blow torch, lay on the ground so the water level is above your head. Light the torch and duck your head. Now try the same with gasoline. The difference is C-4 is explosive to HHO and to dynamite to gasoline. C-4 is like lightning. gasoline is like a fire. Ok. Now do some research.

[Philldpapill]

gizzy - huh? Are you saying C-4 is reactive to HHO and dynamite? i.e. C-4 will spontaneously explode when in the presence of HHO? HHO explodes so violently because it is, by nature, a stochiometric mixture... perfect for combustion. Gasoline, however, "burns" in the air because it is just a concentrated vapor, reacting with whatever random molecules of O2 just happen to come in contact. What are you saying?

[gizzy]

gizzy - huh? Are you saying C-4 is reactive to HHO and dynamite? i.e. C-4 will spontaneously explode when in the presence of HHO? HHO explodes so violently because it is, by nature, a stochiometric mixture... perfect for combustion. Gasoline, however, "burns" in the air because it is just a concentrated vapor, reacting with whatever random molecules of O2 just happen to come in contact. What are you saying?

No. Not at all. But yes as far as the volatility when a flame is introduced to each one of the gases. I was giving an example on the speeds of travel of an explosive reaction that is the difference between the two. C-4 burns at a speed un-comprehensible to imagine. If you lined up det-cord which is the cord made of C-4 an lit it in L.A. it would be in N.Y. in 3 seconds. Gasoline on the other hand would take 8 hours. I was just making a comparison. HHo explodes and gasoline more or less burns. Sir I was just being sarcastic but, also making an example. And as far as being a scientist or chemist I'm not. I just am making a relative comparison of burn speed.

[Philldpapill]

Holy hell... If that really is the case(LA to NY in 3 seconds), that is amazing. It's about 3000 miles from LA to NY, so that's 1,000 miles per second, OR 5.28 MILLION feet ber second, OR Mach 4800. I know there's a difference between an "explosion" and a "burn" - just the speed of reaction and expansion.

I think you are indeed right about the speed of propogation between the flamefront in HHO and stochiometric gasoline/oxygen. I would love to see some data and expirements that address this.

[gizzy]

Holy hell... If that really is the case(LA to NY in 3 seconds), that is amazing. It's about 3000 miles from LA to NY, so that's 1,000 miles per second, OR 5.28 MILLION feet ber second, OR Mach 4800. I know there's a difference between an "explosion" and a "burn" - just the speed of reaction and expansion.

I think you are indeed right about the speed of propogation between the flamefront in HHO and stochiometric gasoline/oxygen. I would love to see some data and expirements that address this.

Ya really. That would be really interesting.What bears reason to me is, when you add a flame to hho the explosion is basically like lightning. Combustion happens so fast it's unbelievable. Plastic explosives are the same way. Now not saying gas isn't fast but gas is an accelerate and the fumes are explosive but it burns, hho just explodes with no residuals. This is what makes it unique. It doesn't have a residual effect with a flame and also has no co2 gases associated with it.

[Philldpapill]

Gizzy, when gasoline is in a stochiometric mixture, it too goes pop just the same. Apparently, after some research, the absolute fastest speed that a combustion reaction can reach, is the speed of sound through the gas. How's that for interesting...

You're right about HHO combusting without any products, other than H20. However, in reality, you DO get some other peripheral products from the reaction if you are doing it in air. This is because the intense heat that is produced, actually knocks around and sometimes recombines some molecules in the air. If you've got some CO floating around, it can be turned into CO2, but in reality, this is a TINY bit - nothing to worry about at all, but rather a side note.

BTW, don't take it the wrong way... but the term "explodes" bugs me. An "Explosion" isn't anything different than "burning"... Explosion's just have a higher rate of reaction, and create a much more rapid expansion as a result. Both HHO and gasoline "burn" and "explode", so there isn't any difference between them in that regard - it's just a function of the ratio of fuel to oxygen in the mixture.

[johnyb]

When i first discovered these misguided fellow men, i was explaining that my usual city fuel consumption has been 12 Liters per 100km for years. I put in this stale fuel that has been in the fuel canister for months, and then the consumption for that (nearly) full tank of fuel dropped to 9 Liters per 100km. I explained that i discovered that it had happened several times, but that it took several months of sitting in the boot of the car in the summer heat. First he listened and was interested, but as i started sharing some thoughts of what i thought it might be related to, it kicked his reasoning mind into gear, and that brought the Academic Law into his focus, which triggered his song and dance. "eeeemposeeeboooooool" "cant get more energy out than in".. He shakes the tail, steps to the right, and the hands gyrate a few more times.. "emposeeble", tap, tap tap,,,,.

Sorry, but i have had to look at this humorously, as i found that taking them too seriously and being upset with the assumptions from their inherited law of thermodynamics, was not empowering to me. Fighting or pushing seems like a waste of personal energy. Humor is just the first step. Focusing on their ignorance is not a solution either.


Since then i have stopped discussing it with closed minded people who cling to their assumptions. However, as i have been learning more and more about engines, i have realized there is a possibility that some people may get the bigger picture and that their cherished laws are not being broken after all. It is not about changing them, but about offering the opportunity for them to use their reason to open them to a greater understanding. It is up to them to take the steps if they so decide.

Many people have their ideas and theories of the what and how of reduced fuel consumption from HHO supplementation, but it doesn't appear to me that anything is definite beyond theorizing in how all of the things interact with one another, even when some aspects seem like very good probability of being part of the truth. I do not know if these theories are going to be of any use to a skeptic who has used his/ her reasoning against possibility.

I think the more critical step is in focusing on the facts that their reasoning mind can not deny, and thus more likely to be accepted by their worshiped deity (ie Academic law).

The average vehicle is grossly inefficient. I do not have reputable figures, so it could be arguable as to what exactly is average. Never the less, if you even took above average efficiency figures of Internal Combustion Engines today, we are talking multiples. From examples i have seen in the past, my understanding is that the average figure of an engine's efficiency is something around mid twenties to 30 % efficiency. It seems to depend on the country too. Generally, the European's seem to be at the better end of the spectrum, and the Americans at the least efficient. My 4 cylinder Mazda is about 30%. That leaves ENORMOUS room for getting better mileage/ reduced fuel consumption.

Perhaps ask them if they are aware of what the average efficiency of a car is? Let them work their reasoning mind, and allow them to come to their own understanding of their assumption. If they already know, then ask them how is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that thermodynamic laws have been broken? If they don't know, then that's where it would be worth while to explaining that a cars efficiency is multiples time inefficient from 100 %.. State the figures if you know them from reputable sources.

[Buster]

The great thing about being open-minded is that it is it's own reward...
you're saving money and the naysayers are still paying more to drive around!!
Seems like great justice to me!
Don't let them get you down. Give yourself a pat on the back and enjoy.