HHO Generator - Save Gas

The "It doesn't work because the car makers havent picked up on it" doesn't really hold much water. Car enthusiasts have beat the auto industry on many occasions... Cold air intakes come to mind.

Futher more. Would the common socccer mom have the ability to refill the water, measure and add the electrolyte? Don't forget the plates/rods need to be periodically inspected and replaced.

Do yall know I California there are actuall "HHO Booster" clubs that meet and swap their latest ideas?

Now, a freind is trying something different on his Lexus. He's using a pulse width modulator to control the amperage. This lets him jack up the electrolyte w/o pulling too many amps. He says hes producing a LOT more hydrogen w/ the same amount of power as before.

Very Interesting.

 

Gee, I didn't think about that. Pre-mix of water and electrolyte can't possibly be packaged like 50/50 mix anti-freeze that is now available in parts stores and there is absolutely no way it can possibly be made, mixed up, and added to cars as easily as gasoline. I know darn well that mechanics can't check the plates and rods when the oil is changed because that would take away from the "less than 10-minute" marketing. Not to mention, that changing those plates and rods out cannot be as easy as changing spark plugs or other sensors.

People want to get in their cars, turn the key, and go. If the only way this will work is for the consumer to add solution every couple of days or so (depending on how many miles they drive daily), it becomes inconvenient and will be unpopular. Heck, even I'm not insterested if I've got to mix up and add solution once per week. I get 26 mpg in my Buick and I drive 350 miles per week. At $4.00 per gallon, that is $53.85 per week. I would need to see a minimum of $15 savings per week in gas expense to make it worth my time and the expense to mess with one of these devices if I have to do all the mixing and maintenance. This device would have to get me 36 mpg and that is 38% increase. If the price of gas goes down as it has been, then the MPG I have to get to save 15$ goes up. Lets' say gas drops to $3.00 per gallon, to save $15, I've got get over 41 mpg and that's a 58% increase over what I'm getting now.

What's your mpg increase so far, Bubba?

 

Please don't use that as a basis...... in roswell new new mexico there are "alien landing clubs"............. so with the basis of that theory you can go out and get hammered with ET....:16suspect
and don't get me on the "Dungeons and Dragons" groups.......heck we never got to hang with orcs and wizards when I was in Junior High

 

Yeah, I wasn't sure If should use Californians as an example or not

5-8% increase in my F150 after 3 tanks.

Removed pending new alternator on the Mav

 

What?..... Aww shucks, what did I miss?

 

Hello Bubba

So after 3 tanks your MPG has increased from 13 MPG to 13.6- 14 MPG (5%-8% increase).
Do you think this Very slight increase in fuel economy might have had more to do with the way you were driving?
As I recall, when you were driving your Maverick normally you actually got Less mileage with HHO HHO HHO.
From what I have read I would have expected an increase to at least 25- 30 MPG.

 

Yup, probably can get a bigger increase with a $20 bill and 30 minutes of tuning.

 

No... As I have VERY clearly stated, I already drive for FE.

Bum, your post makes no sence.

Lets assume the truck even needs tuning up, which it doesn't. I spend $20 and 30 minutes tuning... And get a 10% increase in FE. Okay. Great! But now, why in hell would I stop there when I could do something else to increase FE also?

This is so ridiculas. Why the hell are you people even arguing with me? Im not a proponent of this crap. Im not pushing it on you. Im experimenting with it! Im seeing for MYSELF if this will work or not. I could (and have) sit back with NO first hand experience and critisize this. Instead, im givin it a wirl.

Now, id apprciate it if you nay-sayers would get the hell off my ass, unless you have real substance to add.

 

Bubba, I do applaud what you're doing. I gave up on it perhaps earlier than I should have. At least you stuck with it. I thought it was nonsense from the beginning and I still do, but you are actually testing it from a semi-skeptic and scientific point of view, and at least YOUR claims of increased mileage aren't wild and preposterous like so many others who make the "HHO community" look like idiots.

 

Actually if you look back to post 210 he did give up for awhile....

I guess the question I have is why put something on your car that has so high of a probability of destroying your investment. If you shelled out the money and put a 130 amp alternator on your car just so you can intentionally put a short in your system.....Doesn't make sense to me....

Also isn't part of making the HHO work is by detuning your motor and over advancing it? So by tuning your motor you would have an adverse affect on the HHO generator and you would cancel out any gain you had either way.

We are not arguing with you actually we are hoping your efforts work really well, but alot of stuff we are hearing is counter productive and it negates stuff said earlier in this post.

There are alot of proponents that tend just to search for this stuff so they can comment on it, Tilly, and Brad West to name a few. I hate to say it but they are the cyber equivalent of Jehova's Witnesses, or Mormon Missionarys....They go around spreading their pamphlets and preaching that their way is right and your way is wrong, even after it has been made clear that they are not wanted there.......

 

Hello Facelessnumber

That is what I was trying to determine, are the test results scientifically valid?
I can find no information on what controls Bubba has in place to make a claim that the HHO gives a 5%- 8% increase in mileage on his F150.

A case in point
I drive a 2005 Ssangyong Musso Dual Cab Utility with a 2.9 litre 5 cylinder Mercedes Diesel and my mileage is typically around 12 litres/ 100km (19.6 US MPG)

My wife has a 2008 Ford FG Falcon XT sedan with a 4 Litre 6 cylinder Petrol egine and the computer says that since new it has averaged 9.7 litres/ 100km (24.25 US MPG)
This seems to clearly demonstrate that a Petrol engine is more fuel efficent than a diesel. However, most of my mileage is Town driving and most of her mileage is country driving.
I do not really think a petrol engine is more fuel efficent than a Diesel. I will require a lot more convincing about this.
Her car certainly is more comfortable to drive, no further convincing required!

I would truely love to believe that somehow the HHO proponents have been able to get around the first law of Thermal Dynamics. But I am not convinced.

...............2005 Ssangyong Musso Dual Cab Utility...............



....................2008 Ford FG Falcon XT Sedan................




PS Ford Just Placed 1, 3, and 4 in the Bathurst 1000 V8 Supercar race.

 

Thanks FN. Hopefully somethin will come out of this.

Ehh, I gave up on the Maverick. Never took it off my truck.

Possibly, but Im not going that far with it. Especially on the Mav, which has no water temp gauge.


Tilly, what do you want? Me to put the truck up on a dyno? Sorry. Won't happen.


On a side note. I beleive Im going to put the six jar system I had on the Maverick into my truck, which only has one jar. See how that works out.

 

No problem Bob. I can see where your are coming from.

 

Good point Bubba. It has already taken place this year. I really thought about going because someone was tring to make a car run on 70% HHO to Gas ratio.

 

Using CH3OH may cause a big problem because of resistance. If someone added it to a booster with baking soda the resistance would be to great and you would have a temp runaway above steam point, but if you don't use baking soda it may work if mixed properly.

EDIT: I found that Ethylene glycol if injested will turn into calcium oxalate crystals in human or animals kidneys. Just thought maybe why that would still be a bad idea because you don't know what it will translate into in this case and could crystalise your engine.