rising gas prices? try this, HHO Fuel.

Found this on the web.... The idea seems pretty solid... Then found some you tube videos on the subject.

HHO gas based car system's are the latest breakthrough in terms of an environmentally friendly car modification which allows users to increase their mileage, save money on gasoline costs and drastically reduce car emissions. Such system's rely on HHO gas to assist combustion. These systems are surely going to revolutionise the way we look at fuel consumption and economy of cars.

We live in a fast paced world where rising gasoline prices are a major issue for consumers worldwide. The majority of US, Canadian, British and Australian citizens are heavily reliant on their car's and hence gasoline prices. Imagine becoming immune to rising gasoline prices and laughing in the faces of oil companies worldwide? Such HHO based technology can save the average US driver in excess of $1000 dollars a year in gasoline prices.

Using an HHO gas based car modification can increase mileage between 30% - 50%. The efficiency of your car's engine will be dramatically increased, which will make amazing increases of your mileage. Further to this your engine will run smoother and quieter. Not only will such technology increase mileage, but it will also improve performance and power of your car, and assist to prolong engine life.

How It Works

Now we are going to demonstrate how a HHO based gas system works. The technology does not interfere or damage your car's engine or computer system. Essentially you place a quart size container filled with distilled water and small amount of baking soda under the hood of your car. The system is powered by electricity (12 Volts) from the engine, creates a vacuum and produces HHO Gas. This gas is then pushed into the engines manifold or carburettor.

Conclusion

Using a water car system is not certainly part of the solution to rising gasoline prices. 100% water car's are something for the future, but currently a long way off being released to the public. Sure you can buy a hybrid car if you have the money, but it is not a viable option for your average Joe. Imagine being able to save money today, increase your car's mileage and help save our environment with the one basic system.

Want to learn more about the revolutionary water4gas system and how you can increase you mileage and save thousands of dollars a year? Please Visit:

Click to expand...

http://www.water4gasreview.com

(Installed in a car part 1)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oCvnhQR7slY&feature=related

(INstalled in a car part 2)
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MI5YbmCvp_I&feature=related

> The idea seems pretty solid...

Solid way to collect a little money for "plans".

Lot more work for the user/victim than the old one: pills to turn water into gas.

Less work than the old plans for a 400MPG carburetor.

> (INstalled in a car part 2)

Oh, man, what a bozo. The gauge says 18 but after turning it around he says it is "22". (No engine idles at 22".) He blips the throttle, the engine bogs, he says "No hesitation at all!" (It doesn't hesitate to do very little?) Then he shows that the gauge, which he says normally drops to 7 when throttle is blipped (should fall more than that, unless the ECU objects), doesn't budge. Uh, yeah, so how is the engine speed changing at all? Most likely he has the vacuum gauge tapped somewhere other than what the engine is actually sucking. With all those hoses, valves, and canister, he sure could have a pocket of vacuum.

> The idea seems pretty solid...

At best, it uses electrical energy to break H2O into H and O. Then burns the H and O back to H2O+energy.

(There's no energy in the water. The H and O are happy as can be, snuggled together.)

The energy contained in the H and O is no more than the electrical energy put in. Actually less. Maybe 94% in theory, but nobody comes close. Lots of losses in the way. 50% would be good. Hardware store materials and a 12.6V source would be lucky to approach 10% efficiency of electric to H+0. (It takes 1.23V, ideally, to break water, so the other 11.37V is going to side-effects.)

We burn the energy in the H and O in an engine which is at-best 42% efficient, and more often 25%.

The engine moves the vehicle, and also turns the alternator to break more water into H and O. Hell, say the alt is 100% efficient, even though 80% would be good.

So the electric we put into the canister, 0.50 to 0.10 comes out as potential H and O energy. That burns and we recover 0.42 to 0.25 of that. Ignoring minor losses like alternator (and vehicle!) we get back 0.21-0.025 or 21%-2.5% of what we started with.

Or look at it this way. If it really worked, he'd build a BIGGER canister, get more H and O, enough to eliminate the gasoline system. Pig-poop fans do this! (Pig-poop soup yields methane, you pipe this to the intake, turn off the gasoline, the engine keeps running and will pull a load.) Why hasn't he kicked the gasoline habit yet? He (all these "HHO" vendors) could make a fortune! If it worked. If it even came close to working. Even if it took half the bed of that pickup, it would be interesting.

The only solid side-effect of any merit is water vapor (the "H and O" is contaminated by bubbly-water vapor). It is well known that a high-compression engine knocks less with a slug of water vapor. In the old days this allowed use of a lower octane fuel, or higher supercharger boost. Some modern engines have "too much compression" and use knock-sensors to hold the engine spark timing back to the best it can do with the fuel (and load) it has. A misty day, or a misty "Hydrogen generator", would allow more advanced spark timing and marginally better efficiency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement

I'm thinking of fitting a vacuum cleaner under the hood of my Nissan Armada, to add some extra pressure to air filter, activated by a button under a gas pedal...

400 Horses instead of 300 horses when need to accelerate really fast is a good idea, right?

[quote author="Wavebourn"]I'm thinking of fitting a vacuum cleaner under the hood of my Nissan Armada, to add some extra pressure to air filter, activated by a button under a gas pedal...[/quote]

...I sincerely hope that you're not serious, -but...

They sell such a thing all over eBay.

If you think that a simple vacuum cleaner can handle the CFM then go right ahead, but please take the car to the dyno before and after, then post scans of your dyno sheets... You get 400HP at the wheels using this method and I'll personally buy you a second 400HP car to keep as a stablemate.

Oh, and the increased effective compression ratio will mean that you'll have to run MEGA-OCTANE fuel (to prevent knock), and reprogram the engine computer, or run lean. You'd also probably need to use higher-flowing injectors and/or a higher pressure fuel regulator. skipping these steps wrong usually results in running lean, detonation, melting pistons or any of the "thousand natural shocks which internal combustion is heir to..."

The eBay 'electric supercharger' goes for about $60. -If they sold it for a tenth of that price, it would be $6 too much.



HHO seems to be more 'over-unity' stuff. -Why not just build an electric car then shove some dynamos at the wheels, to turn that motion back into electrickery? -It's BOUND to work, -right?

To make this sort of stuff work, you really have to be a mathmagician.

Keef

I had to add a special ignition system that sensed intake boost and retarded ignition timing to prevent detonation at high RPM when the blower was making good pressure... Otherwise my poor pistons would have melted,,, but I had more than a vacuum cleaner under there.

I liked that idea I saw some time ago where a guy was injecting water into the hot cylinder for an extra steam cycle on top of the normal 4 stroke IC... It sounded good on paper, but I suspect there are some significant mechanical reliability issues.

I just had the main pinion bearing go bad in my differential... ouch$.

JR

I think it was discussed on a past episode of the Skeptic's Guide:
http://theskepticsguide.org/

[quote author="SSLtech"][quote author="Wavebourn"]I'm thinking of fitting a vacuum cleaner under the hood of my Nissan Armada, to add some extra pressure to air filter, activated by a button under a gas pedal...[/quote]

...I sincerely hope that you're not serious, -but...

[/quote]

...and you are right. This Japanese wonder is already consuming too much: 15 miles per gallon, though it is much better than Hummer does...

By the way, I don't understand how Honda measures their hybrids: my Civic Hybrid makes maximum 37 miles per gallon, how did they manage to get 45 to put on posters?

Same way that Toyota did when they claimed 60MPG for the Prius... Now they claim 45MPG, and nothing has changed...

-Want proof? -Go look at www.edmunds.com and research the specs for the Prius for the last few years. With NO change in electrical or internal combustion specifications, they switched from claiming 60MPG to 45MPG. -This seemed to signal to other manufacturers that it is quite alright to blatantly lie about reasonable vehicle performance expectations, and other manufacturers happily joined in the fun.

Oh yes... and to further compound the lie, comparing ACTUAL full-tank-to-full-tank mileage divided by the number of gallons to fill up the tank with the indicated on-board computer numbers usually shows that the on-board computer is also lying a bit...

Both of my current vehicles are Forced-Induction, and I'm currently looking at another. My own Supercharged 2-Litre VW (self-fitted twin-screw blower) gets around 30MPG per tank, urban motoring. Since I always fill up the tank and it's always about 12 gallons to do so, and I always reset the trip counter at each fill-up, the math is fairly easy... The best mileage that I've ever had from a tank was an ACTUAL 36MPG over the course of a complete tank... That's almost as good as the 37 from the civic hybrid, though on the whole I don't doubt that the civic gets better overall numbers, I can say that the VW is a WHOLE lot more enjoyable to drive...

Much better than a Hummer? -An agricultural model maybe, but not all that much better than the Tahoe-based H2, and slightly worse than the H3... However, about the same as my sister-in-law's Jeep Liberty, which consistently returns 15-16MPG per tankful... -Now THAT's a lamentable performance...

Now imagine that 15MPG was on premium fuel with the probably likelihood of having to add octane booster on top of that... or play some fancy fuel and ignition timing tricks.

The 6-stroke engine uses water for two strokes and spark for four. -A 3:1 cam-to-crank gearing ratio and a special camshaft apparently makes it go. -The steam cycles apparently render radiator cooling unneccesary, so you add fuel AND water at the same time, in an appropriate ratio. -Lubrication challenges apring to mind, but the reclamation of wasted engine heat is an interesting non-"over-unity" idea... I don't know how realistic it truly is though... I'd LIKE to think that it's realistic.

Keith

Here we go again...

Wavebourn--is your Civic hybrid a pre-2006 model or 2006+? I have a 2006 (new generation Civic) hybrid and I have gotten 43.5mpg over the 24k miles I've had it. My commute takes me down 2000' and then back up every day (5 miles of that each way followed by more normal freeway stuff for 15 miles). Steep grades and winding roads--not ideal hybrid territory by any stretch. I get 90-150mpg going down the 5 miles of mountain and under 20 going back up, so net for that section is around 33-35mpg. I make up for it everywhere else. The WORST tank I've ever had was just under 39mpg and I've had one at 56mpg.

Do you run your defroster or AC all of the time? If you do, you will not get good mileage (RTFM) as this will defeat certain gas-saving modes of operation. Do you drive like a bat out of hell? Above 65mph aerodynamics dominate and mileage falls off. I usually drive around 68-75mph, BTW.

As for the EPA estimates...well, they are estimates. An awful lot depends on how you drive, where you drive, and how far you drive each trip. There's no single number that will be accurate. Some people drive the same car as I do and get over 60mpg regularly. Keith--the method used for generating EPA numbers changed last year. ALL cars had new estimates and all number fell by around 10%. Check it.

Don't forget that the HCHII is an AT-PZEV rated vehicle. Even when the gas engine is running it produces fewer noxious combustion by-products than most other cars (SULEV rated). Diesel is still dirtier--even with the low sulfur stuff they (finally) sell.

SUVs are huge, heavy, un-aerodynamic beasts with high rolling resistance on top of it all. What do you expect? Rolling resistance makes a difference. After recently getting a bad flat on my OEM tires I replaced them all with a different brand (supposed low rolling resistance) and my mileage has suffered 1-2mpg ever since.

As for the computers lying about mileage. Those measurements are also subject to error. My car consistently reports lower than computing odo/pumped gallons by 1-1.5mpg. The computed mpg has NEVER exceeded actual.

A P

My experience (real measurements over a long time)
1. Nissan Sentra SE 2 liters (stick gearshift) -- 32 mpg on highest octane fuel as specified (sold to some Christian priest on ePay);
2. Toyota Prius -- 45 mpg of lowest octane fuel (sold to father in law when his Cadillac died),
3. Civic hybrid -- 37 mpg on lowest octane fuel -- accelerates faster than 1 (due to electrical assist) and 2 (due to more powerful engine)
4. Nissan Armada -- 15 mpg on lowest octane fuel -- a real flying tank, no Tahoe or Hummer can compete, I tried them. My friend who owns a sporty Bimmer and myself compared them; both Armada and BMW accelerate nose-to-nose, but Bimmer is more stable on sharp turns, and no need to gearshift when braking, just release a gas pedal, that's all. Nice! But it is much lighter than my monster is, though. No American truck can ever compete.

I drive 3 and 4 now, I love both.

So to answer my question Re: Bat out of hell, I will take your response as a "yes." That explains your 37mpg. Also, note tire pressure. A few psi can make a big difference as well. I tend to run mine at 38-40psi which makes another ~2mpg difference (rolling resistance). And before someone jumps my case...I've never had traction trouble. It rains a lot here in the winter--did I mention the mountain roads?

A P

There's nothing like first-hand info. :thumb:

Mind you, the Prius went down by a LOT more than 10%... the previous mileage estimates were more than 30% higher than ANYONE ever achieved, and Toyota were monstrously and outrageously out of line in claiming 60MPG.

The fact is that EPA estimates only apply in the USA, and the recent publishable mileage estimate reductions do not apply in Canada, the UK, Europe or anywhere else outside these borders...

...and yet Toyota published anticipated mileage figures GLOBALLY for that vehicle which nobody has ever achieved.

I'm not Anti-Toyota, nor am I anti-hybrid... I'm not even Anti-Prius, but they really over-reached with those numbers and Toyota's unwillingness to publicly admit it is as laughable as Clinton's assertion that he "never had sex with that woman"... Everyone knows that you're not really speaking the truth if you make claims that way.

Also, the enormous Prius mileage wind-down happened BEFORE the EPA updated estimates came into force.

Basically, Toyota lied. It's a great car, but saying that it gets 60MPG would be like me claiming an extra 35% on my penis length... Anyone who actually measured it will KNOW that I was lying.

Keith

[quote author="SSLtech"]There's nothing like first-hand info. :thumb: [/quote]

No doubt...

Mind you, the Prius went down by a LOT more than 10%... the previous mileage estimates were more than 30% higher than ANYONE ever achieved, and Toyota were monstrously and outrageously out of line in claiming 60MPG.

Click to expand...

Looking it up...Prius went from 60/51 to 48/45 which is at worst a 20% drop, not 30%. And there ARE people out there who are regularly beating the old estimated mileage by changing their driving habits (perhaps to an annoying degree, but still, it IS entirely possible):

Actual Prius II mileage data

Note that the median mileage is 48mpg.

...and yet Toyota published anticipated mileage figures GLOBALLY for that vehicle which nobody has ever achieved.

Click to expand...

Note that Toyota published data using the old EPA method. They did not make up numbers for marketing purposes (though they may have "gamed" their design to maximize EPA figures). It is interesting to note that while the HCH II had numbers that went from 45/51 to 40/45, the actual reported mileage (median of 46mpg) is much closer to the original estimate, and is within 2mpg of the Prius II (for about $2-3k less).

Actual HCH II mileage

Also, the enormous Prius mileage wind-down happened BEFORE the EPA updated estimates came into force.

Basically, Toyota lied. It's a great car, but saying that it gets 60MPG would be like me claiming an extra 35% on my penis length... Anyone who actually measured it will KNOW that I was lying.

Click to expand...

I think the big problem was that EPA estimate methodology was deeply flawed (and arguably still is), but most people never seemed to care. With the advent of high efficiency cars, people started paying attention to actual mileage as that was the motivation behind their purchase. When their numbers didn't match up with their expectation, the crap hit the rotary air circulator.

As for lying, that's stretching it, I think. The process and verification of the EPA estimates is not easily circumvented by manufacturers. If anything, Toyota may have optimized the car for that (old) measurement rather than for real world driving. That's not a good or honest thing, either, but perverse incentives usually lead to that sort of result.

A P

Hmmm...

That doesn't explain why the rest of the world declared mileage dropped so prodigiously... nor why the timing of the (global) change doesn't match the EPA revisions...

at worst a 20% drop, not 30%.

Click to expand...

60 - 48 = 12, twelve is one quarter of forty-eight, which means that the old figure is 25% higher than the now-accepted 'correct' figure... 45MPG requires a 33% aggrandisement to equate to 60MPG... expressing the change as a percentage of the larger number reduces the apparent magnitude of the 'error'. Given that we may realistically accept that the 48/45MPG figure is resonable the magnitude of error should be expressed as a proportion/fraction/percentage of the NEW figure, not the old... thus I wouldn't think that saying 20%-30% is unreasonable.

I could probably get as much as 35MPG over a tank from my VW on my regular weekly commute, by significantly revising my driving habits, but it is in all good conscience utterly unreasonable to expect me to drive in such a way... creeping slowly away from every light, watching the vaccum gauge like a hawk... looking MUCH further ahead to each light, coasting etc... but that's just asking TOO much, and to get 60MPG from a Prius, that's probably the same sort of imposition... -as you say to an annoying degree.

...Basically, the defences claimed by Toyota are just a bit TOO far from resonable, and I find the disparity between their original claimed figures to be annoying. MOST cars (using the newer, less-optimistic EPA estimates) can achieve their manufacturers' claimed figures without having to dramatically change typical driving habits... The Prius figures are about right now... but they were claiming 60MPG as a realistic figure 4 or 5 years ago... That's MORE than 10% away from a realistic typical driving figure, to my way of thinking.

By the way, I was just re-enjoying the old Forrester/Prius/Jetta thread from 2½ years ago... :green:

Keith

[quote author="SSLtech"]Hmmm...

That doesn't explain why the rest of the world declared mileage dropped so prodigiously... nor why the timing of the (global) change doesn't match the EPA revisions...[/quote]

I guess I'm being USA-centric. Got any pointers to standard mileage estimates from elsewhere? I've never seen any (nor have I looked). More data good.

at worst a 20% drop, not 30%.

Click to expand...

60 - 48 = 12, twelve is one quarter of forty-eight, which means that the old figure is 25% higher than the now-accepted 'correct' figure... 45MPG requires a 33% aggrandisement to equate to 60MPG... expressing the change as a percentage of the larger number reduces the apparent magnitude of the 'error'. Given that we may realistically accept that the 48/45MPG figure is resonable the magnitude of error should be expressed as a proportion/fraction/percentage of the NEW figure, not the old... thus I wouldn't think that saying 20%-30% is unreasonable.

Click to expand...

I stated "20% drop" and referenced the high figure...12/60 = 20%. but I see your point most clearly, sir.

I could probably get as much as 35MPG over a tank from my VW on my regular weekly commute, by significantly revising my driving habits, but it is in all good conscience utterly unreasonable to expect me to drive in such a way... creeping slowly away from every light, watching the vaccum gauge like a hawk... looking MUCH further ahead to each light, coasting etc... but that's just asking TOO much, and to get 60MPG from a Prius, that's probably the same sort of imposition... -as you say to an annoying degree.

Click to expand...

Next time you're out this way let me know and you can have a test drive. I'll even allow you to backseat drive and point out any annoying habits I may have developed over the past couple of years. :razz:

I consider my modified driving habits to be mild changes and well worth the effort. I do sometimes see other hybrid drivers being a bit more annoying, but as long as they aren't breaking any laws (unlike many lead foot types I see daily), you can't really fault them.

In summary, I get slightly better than revised EPA estimated mileage in my HCH II on a commute that is probably more than 2 sigma below mean for the nation as far as potential for high efficiency driving goes (there are lots of downright FLAT places...like Florida!).

For reference, this is the general area where I live

...Basically, the defences claimed by Toyota are just a bit TOO far from resonable, and I find the disparity between their original claimed figures to be annoying. MOST cars (using the newer, less-optimistic EPA estimates) can achieve their manufacturers' claimed figures without having to dramatically change typical driving habits... The Prius figures are about right now... but they were claiming 60MPG as a realistic figure 4 or 5 years ago... That's MORE than 10% away from a realistic typical driving figure, to my way of thinking.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree that by some means, Toyota was able to make mileage claims that were more than a little optimistic for the average driver. I wish more press were given to what a driver CAN do to improve his/her mileage (regardless of vehicle). This story is a start.

By the way, I was just re-enjoying the old Forrester/Prius/Jetta thread from 2½ years ago... :green:

Click to expand...

I vaguely recall that thread...I had just gotten my car about that time, I do believe.

A P

<edit> Fixed quote format errors...doh!

I am a law abiding citizen.

1. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
2. You're doing damn well if you get half the lunch you paid for.

[quote author="AnalogPackrat"]So to answer my question Re: Bat out of hell, I will take your response as a "yes." That explains your 37mpg. Also, note tire pressure. A few psi can make a big difference as well. I tend to run mine at 38-40psi which makes another ~2mpg difference (rolling resistance). And before someone jumps my case...I've never had traction trouble. It rains a lot here in the winter--did I mention the mountain roads?
[/quote]


My Prius rating (45) is average, so nothing is wrong with my driving style. It means, Honda lies as well! And Nissan (about Armada).

Speaking of pressure, I'm afraid of pushing more than 35: it is hot here in Bay Area, I'm afraid it may explode on a highway...

PS: interesting, when I run native tires on Sentra SE I caught up nails 3 times. But when I bought RunFlat tires I wearied them completely but no nails had been caught... Go figure.

> fitting a vacuum cleaner under the hood of my Nissan Armada

Some staring-into-space figuring suggests that the HP/weight ratio of an electric supercharger is comparable to the weight/HP ratio of modern sedans.

Compressing air into a cylinder is WORK. You do get more HP in the same displacement, and more thermal efficiency, but the work of compression eats much of the increase. I venture to say that increased NET output is no better than twice the power into the blower.

A 30 pound starter motor can deliver 1.5HP (for some seconds) which with an optimum fan will net about 3 extra HP from a stock modern engine. Total weight of motor, fan, and ducting say 45 pounds, for 3 extra HP. The weight/HP ratio is 15:1. My Accord runs 3,000+lbs on 148HP, weight/HP ratio 16:1. I would be adding HP and weight in the same ratio I already have, net increase of acceleration about zero.

The $60 job is surely a ~120 Watt motor at most, which is 1/6th HP. If the fan were optimum (unlikely) we could get a whopping 1/3rd HP more. Be careful with that!

One advantage of Hydrogen fuel is that it will burn at very lean ratios. Of course in the "HHO" schemes, the H is not separated from the O and they are in the correct ratio, so it isn't lean. To use this fact, assuming you did have pure H, you would have to cobble the ECU to thin the gasoline. The present O2 sensor won't read well, so we need a new mixture sensing system. Yet if you get pure H from splitting H2O, it is "stupid" to throw away the O, because half the electrolysis power input is in the O.

Anyway, to use lean-burn, you leave the throttle wide-open and reduce fuel to reduce output. This gives a slight reduction in pumping loss. However our other technique is to gear-up, drop RPM, leave throttle fairly wide open. This reduces air along with power, so normal AF ratios continue to work well. And the lower RPM gives more time for that last molecule of gasoline to find an O2 molecule and burn. Statistically it takes infinite time to burn every molecule, but good turbulence can burn nearly-all in a short time. So H as a lean-burn amendment to gasoline adds complexity for no great benefit. (Adding pure H to bottled gas fuels does make more sense, because there is no new complexity, and it is done. But bottle-gas has not generally competed with liquid dino-juice because of bottle cost and weight, in-vehicle and for pipeline transportation from Oklahoma.)

For another project, I thought about running an engine on straight H and O. The primary issue on stock engines is that they are designed to use 80% Nitrogen. It is (nearly) inert; yet if you took it out you would have 5 times the thermal input in the same space and pistons would burn like cardboard. Maybe it is "only a materials problem", and lesser problems were solved for jet engines and efficient steam turbines. Clearly the big NASA rockets burn straight H and O, but only for a minute per use, and they start from cryogenic fuel and use that to cool the chamber walls. For my purposes it could work to burn warm H and O at 0.2 atmosphere pressure: that would give near normal thermal density, and normal parts might live. On the surface of the earth, there is a problem for low MEP: the exhaust comes out below atmospheric pressure and would have to be pumped uphill. But of course on the surface of the earth it is "stupid" to burn H and O at low pressure when standard-pressure 20%-pure O is available free.

If you guy are talking about petrolium at the pumps, try here in the UK 5 pounds a gallon and rising fast thats about 10 US dollars a gallon.

The best thing is that we have north sea oil and alot of countries buy it and have to use it help dilute the sulphur content in their oil because Sudi and canadian oil have a high sulphurus content which would destroy a car engine if were not used with north sea oil.

The only other place in the world were you can get low sulphur content oil is down just south of Florida down to the Dominican republic.

Somebody else can do the sums but this morning in Coulsdon, Surrey in England, unleaded petrol is £1.12 per litre. Before we left for Argentina on 26 March it was £1.02 at the same garage.