Gasoline Hydrogen Fuel-Fact or Fiction?

I have been around long enough to see old ideas recycle over and over again. I remember back in the 70’s during the oil crisis waiting in long lines to get a 10 gallon ration of gasoline. Gas prices jumped from 30 cents a gallon to more than a dollar. (Oh my!) At the time the rage was to increase your gas mileage however you could. Magazines were filled with ads on latest products that could do exactly that. Some of the schemes were pretty exotic. One of my favorites was running your car on water! The idea is simple enough, you just use your car’s electrical system to split good old H2O into a stream of hydrogen and oxygen. It’s easy to do with electrolysis. That combustible mixture is fed into the intake air and voila you get “free” energy. Claims were that you could increase your car’s mileage by 20% or 40% or even “double” your gas mileage “for free”. I asked my college physics professor about it and he just smiled and said “son, nothing in life is free”.

Here’s the problem. First of all it takes energy to split a water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. 12 volts from your car’s electrical system will split water but about 30% of the electrical energy used is wasted as heat. The energy comes from your car’s alternator which is fueled by your gasoline engine. The “free” energy comes from the gasoline you bought. Now that you have already lost 30% of that energy you are about to lose a lot more. The internal combustion engine is a wonderful machine however it is not very efficient. Gasoline (or other fuel) is exploded in a cylinder and it’s that explosion that pushes the pistons and turns the crankshaft. Today’s engineering squeeze as much explosive energy as possible. The fuel is burned quite efficiently but the waste comes in a tremendous amount of excess heat. Your car’s radiator takes the heat out of the engine and just throws it away! Only about 30% of the energy in gasoline is used to turn your crankshaft and get you on down the road. The rest is waste heat.

Using your car’s electrical system to generate hydrogen does not make energy sense. It’s an old scheme that didn’t work then and won’t work now. Leave getting extra energy out of gasoline to the automotive engineers. Keep your car tuned and tires fully inflated. However if you can think of a way to capture the excess heat that’s just wasted now then you’ll have something that the automotive engineers haven’t been able to do anything with except throw it away.

Explore posts in the same categories: Weather

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

71 Comments on “Gasoline Hydrogen Fuel-Fact or Fiction?”

  1. joseph Says:


  2. Art Says:

    The best way to get more miles out of a gallon of gas is to make the car lighter. Gasoline engine have been getting better but the problem is is that all cars have been getting heavier

  3. juan garcia Says:

    can you look in to fuel freedom the gas pill their web site is
    they also make people think that by putting one or two pills into the gas tank will save gas

  4. Keith Says:

    Oh no, now you have done it Steve…Steve Gehrlein of Cambrige Automotive has been “testing” one of those hydrogen generators and claims a significant improvement in mileage on his wife’s Lexus. But consumer units? 5 months in the future. I wait with high hopes that the units will come with performance warranty.

    The inefficiency of all heat engines is due to factors other than the type of fuel used, all the fuel is doing is supplying heat. Sure, putting high octane gasoline in a diesel engine will reduce performance as it won’t ignite easily (and will ruin the fuel system) and diesel also has an ignition problem in gasoline engines as well as having a very low octane index, knocking like a needy neighbor.

    Hydrogen making the gasoline burn better? Please ask for that explaination before putting $1300 down. The waste heat is from conduction to the engine parts and from hot exhaust, not from “poor combustion”. If the hydrogen is to help, it must reduce the heat transfer to the engine. But as it supposedly burns (and chemical thermodynamics assures it combines with oxygen before any hydrocarbon dissociates and combusts), it does nothing to reduce heat transfer to the engine.

    I am sure there will be defenders of this “technology” but they all seem to lose confidence in agreeing to double-blind testing of their products.

  5. Javier Lara Says:

    I too am intested in these systems and was looking into one inparticular. The website is, maybe you can check it out and see if it is worth purchasing. Thank You for your time.

  6. Timothy Says:

    Dear Sir,
    I wonder if it would make a differance if an Internal combustion engine was engineered from the start to use Hydrogen as a catalist for a more complete burn. I beleive that Hydrogen has a very high flash point itself and if used with heavy slower burning fuels could possibly have this effect. A politician around the turn of the 19th century once profess that all was invented and the patent office could be closed. Anyway, Hydrogen as a catalist may be a part of a more sophsticated hybrid diesel electric with enough electric kick to balance the Hydrogen needed for a complete diesel burn without losing torqe. The use of capacitors & regenerative motors and maybe the use of much more efficient thermo electric units than those available for cooling, and of course any mechnical engineers dream light weight materials could all add up to better gas mileage. I say let them invent, let them re-invent the wheel with new and more sophisticated materials until someday the wheel itself falls to the way of the horse and buggy.


  7. Jim R. Says:

    Methinks Mr Gehrlein may soon suffer a credibility problem. This H2O burner has always been filed away with the fuel line magnets and other ” money makers” with usually no end results other than draining consumers pockets.

    Internal combustion engines are nothing more than BTU converters that turn one source of energy (Fuel) into other forms of energy ( heat & kinetic). No matter how you slice it, an internal combustion engine is going to burn its fuel at the general rate of 1/2 pound of fuel per horsepower hour. This is limited by physics! Untill the technology changes drastically don’t expect ” miracle” contraptions to defy the laws of physics. It ain’t gonna happen.

  8. Dan Haltom Says:

    I understand one of the KSAT News Van got fitted
    with a hydrogen Fuel gadget last week. Please keep us informed of the mileage stats. I’m about to install a hydrogen unit from water4gas on one of my vehicles and I will keep you informed of the mileage increase, once I install it. I have to go against the professor and say Hydrogen mixed with gasoline will increase gas mileage!
    Thanks, Dan
    For additional Water4Gas information go to;

  9. larry Says:

    I have been usng a hydrogen device for the past year. This device has improved my gas mileage by 16%.
    That equals for me to 3 gallions a week at the los angeles price of $4.oo per gallion savings today at least twelve dollars a week.

  10. Dan Haltom Says:

    Can you specify which Hydrogen system your using
    to obtain the 16% increase in MPG. Thanks, Dan

  11. Keith Says:

    Hydrogen cannot increase efficiency in a gasoline (Otto Cycle) or diesel engine. The efficiencies of these engines are limited by the cap imposed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Carnot Cycle) and the limitations of reality.

    The 60-75% of the total energy in fuel that does not move the vehicle is not from imcomplete combustion, it is waste heat. The energy is mostly in the hot exhaust, adding hydrogen does nothing to increase the conversion of heat to mechanical energy as it combusts preferentially. The main fuel, be it gasoline, diesel or ethanol, has plenty of hydrogen and this hydrogen burns exactly the same as elemental hydrogen.

    The other minor loss, aside from internal engine friction, is heat loss to the engine. The only way for hydrogen to decrease this loss is by REDUCTION of peak combustion temperature (it doesn’t) or decreased heat transfer rates to the engine.

    Hyhrogen injection has not been proven in any double-blind study.

  12. Dan Haltom Says:

    Thank you for you the hydrogen information. Do you have any information on Ethos? Thanks Dan

  13. Duh1 Says:

    See the 1924 Chevy MPG CONTEST WINNER! 166 MPG. This Held Til, “1973 SHELL OIL CONTEST WINNER!” A 1959 Opel,That Got 356 MPG, At 30 Mph. This is over 35 yrs. ago.

  14. Duh1 Says:

    Dear Professor, There is one law, That will keep a Man, in Everlasting Ignorance. CONTEMPT PRIOR TO INVESTIGATION. Which HHO ASSIST DEVICES HAVE YOU PROVEN NOT TO WORK?

  15. Keith Says:

    The combustion in any heat engine, like fire outside an engine, is a gas-phase chemical reaction as the oxygen itself is a gas. The fuels used in engines is fully vaporized before it combusts.

    Inefficiency in heat engines is NOT from “unburned fuel”. The coal fired power plants on the southeast side of San Antonio are only 40-45% efficient, the rest of the energy ends up heating Braunig and Calaveras lakes. Again, heat engines cannot be 100% efficient because in this world, we have to obey the laws of thermodynamics.

    I experimented years ago with these hydrogen systems. With and without water vapor. Brown’s gas, just hydrogen and no change.

    Vaporizing the fuel? My old Ford truck with the 300 cubic inch 6 cylinder had the intake manifold on top of the exhaust manifold. Immediately below the carburator, there was a “hot spot” made by a thin wall in the intake casting that was directly heated by the exhaust gas. There was a bimetallic thermal actuator which directed hot exhaust onto this spot when the engine was cool. So I experimented to see if jamming this actuator would help. It only helped on cold mornings. On hot days, mileage was WORSE. Why? Because a hot intake reduces efficiency. There was this smart French man by the surname of Carnot who discovered this a few years ago. Check him out. Especially his theoretical thermodynamic cycle.

  16. Norman Says:

    I love it when you get all of these very techical and descriptive explanation as to why this will not work. Yet if you go on youtube there are scores of videos and such of people building these things. Some very amateur, and some very complex. The part I like is where the people who jump up and down turning their face red saying “but it won’t work because the alternator has to work more to power the generator!” Even the relative simple ones with a potentiometer to vary the input are only passing 6 amps through the generator and getting enough hydrogen to dramatically improve mileage. 6 amps. My dome light uses more power than that.
    If you go to the Good Morning America website and seach “water car” you will find a video of a man in Florida that has gotten his car to run almost exclusively on water. I am further impressed by the way people come forward to say they have fitted their car with generator and improved mileage and STILL people reiterate the same text as to why it won’t work. If you doubt, go find out for yourself. I am making my own generator as we speak, and it’s so simple and CHEAP! As soon as I have more than 6 hours off from work to sleep I will complete my project and anyone willing to be proven wrong is more than welcome to come and check it out for yourself.

  17. Norman Says:

    Oh, I almost forgot. For those that claim “but if this technology exists how come the big 3 don’t put it on their cars. Their sales would go through the roof.” It’s simple, if you were making a lot of money from making cars, and making a lot of money by investing in oil companines at the same time, why would you want to cut off your own leg by making oil companies unprofitable. Could you just imagine what would happen to this country and its economy if the major oil companies went bankrupt. Oil companies don’t just control gas prices, they have their fingers in so many cookie jars and fund so many other projects that for that money to suddenly disappear would cause this country to crumble. So why don’t car makers implement this technology, because it would cost the individuals more money than they would make. It’s just not economically sound for them to do so. Why do you think they are fighting the EPA so hard against the proposed mandatory increases in fuel economy. They have the technology, they know just as well as the rest of us do how to increase fuel economy with better parts, lighter materials, and so on, but they would have to cut into their profit margin so much just to make the cars marketable. Performance cost money. You could buy a vehicle from the factory with upgraded intake, heads, exhaust, and ECU (like the Toyota Tundra, 381 hp and 17mpg) but the price tag makes it much less accessable. So they use cheaper, less efficient parts to bring the price into a wider sales bracket.

  18. Norman Says:

    Oh, and in response to #11, the idea by a Brown’s gas generator is not to make the combustion more “complete” or “efficient”, and if you go to any website that states this I would click the back button immediatley because they have no idea what they are talking about. The idea is you are burning the hydrogen from Brown’s gas to power your car and thereby use less gasoline to perform the same work.

    Now there are those who will holler “but the water vapor will rust your engine and exhaust and get into the oil!” That is why the fellow in Florida is only using a small amount of gasoline. It acts as a barrier from the water vapor attacking you engine and exhaust. Water vapor is a small byproduct of the combustion of gasoline. That’s why sometimes you will see a little trail of water coming from the exhaust pipe of the car in front of you. For the most part the water will remain in vapor form until it exits the tailpipe because exhaust temperatures exceed 200 degrees so it won’t settle and rust.

  19. Keith Says:

    Norman, if the HHO or whatever you call it is actually fueling the engine, why is it that the NUMBERS don’t work out?

    Say the car gets 20 MPG at 60 MPH. That is 3 gallons per hour. The energy contained in a gallon of gasoline is about equivalent to a kilogram of hydrogen, that is a LOT of hydrogen. So to do the same work as 3 gallons of gasoline, you would need 3 kilograms of hydrogen. Water is about 11% hydrogen by mass so that would mean you would need 27 kilograms of water, about 7 gallons. Not looking too good, is it?

    But what would be needed to convert that water to hydrogen is 150,000 Watts of power. A big car alternator produces about 130 Amperes at 12 Volts, about 1,560 Watts. 1/100th the power needed. 150,000 Watts is exactly equivalent to 200 Horsepower. What is powering the car?

    You see Norman, that is the error in your math.

    By the way, gasoline is already 15% hydrogen.

  20. Steve Says:

    Check out Professor Woodall’s experiments with h2o at Purdue.
    It will amaze you!

  21. Keith Says:

    Wow, someone (Woodall) makes hydrogen from aluminum and it is groundbreaking science. But it is HIGHLY inefficient as the energy comes from ELECTRICITY needed to refine aluminum.

    Anytime electricity is needed to make a fuel, the efficiency drops 60%.

    Hydrogen is a poor fuel for internal combustion engines. Its octane index is 50 where the cheapest grade of gasoline is 87.

    You could run a fuel cell on it but that is still in the future.

  22. Jason Says:

    Well Morman I would like to hear if this works please comment again I am interested in this concept. Jason

  23. laurencia Says:

    so where would such great energy for the conversion come from?

  24. Chris Says:

    I feel that in most cases with this HHO & gas mileage the point is being missed with all this tech & science discussion. The real issue here is that water is much cheaper then gas and that these HHO units are increasing the mileage of the vehicle reportedly better then anything else being offered. In the end what I think is driving this trend towards using these units is the mileage increase many people are reporting, not that their car is more efficient or cleaner. Given that a good tune-up and keeping tire pressure normally only increases mileage by a couple or few MPG and these units are doing that and then some.

  25. Norman Says:

    Look, I’m certainly no math, physics, or science expert, far from it. All I know is these videos are all over youtube of people building these things and they work. I keep seeing them in the news, working. Please refer to post #16. For that matter KSAT has had such a device fitted on one of their news vans and I am earnestly awaiting their findings. I don’t posess the scientific knowhow to explain how and why these things work in detail, but apparently they do. There was a guy by the name of Stan Meyer who got this to work back in the 90s and then turned up dead. But I digress. Instead of trying to explain why the devices I’ve seen working can’t possibly work, do a little research of your own. Go to youtube, watch some videos, and figure it out for yourself. There’s one guy in particular, SirHoax, that is trying to replicate Stan Meyers design. Very interesting stuff.

  26. Keith Says:

    Of all the countless videos/tales multiplying like rabbits on the Internet, I have yet to see any demonstrable evidence of actual performance gain.

    Gasoline engine technology isn’t voodoo or black magic. The use heat, released on command at a specific portion of the cycle, to expand gas and push a piston. The amount of hydrogen generated by these devices is tiny. Therefore, it isn’t any additional fuel that performs the “magic”.

    So what is the magic? Better fuel burn? Impossible as modern engines effectively atomize gasoline and the high turbulence combustion chambers assure complete combustion. The only major pollutant is NOx, formed as a result of high combustion temperature.

    If videos on the Internet mean things are possible, you should be able to open your locked car with a tennis ball. Or do it over a cell phone.

    If it works, BUY ONE. Don’t take my word, INVEST your money. But in reality, deep down you know scams don’t sell by actual performance, they require a careful crafted pitch.

  27. chris Says:

    If the entire fuel air charge is burned in the combustion process, please explain why there is hydrocarbon as a tailpipe emission. I really dont think that a more efficient fuel burn is impossible as you state. I find it hard to believe that 100% of vehicles on the road burn the entire fuel air charge 100% of the time. I have had many experiences with unburned fuel being evacuated from the cylinder on the exhaust stroke and hitting the catalytic converter and severly damaging them, especially when the catalyst is made into the exhaust manifold. Have you actually tested these systems? Or do you say its a scam with no factual information to back up your claim. I have built my own and I have tested it with a snap-on solus pro scan tool. I have monitored all engine operating sensors, and done emissions tests before and after. I have also done dyno pulls before and after, nothing was changed, no plugs changed, no air filter changed, all exactly the same. I was a skeptic, and I decided to try it. Even if fuel mileage is not improved, it dramatically improves emissions. That is something that we all should be concerned concerned with. No one can argue that it does not improve emissions to me, I have done the tests and I have witnessed it myself. I am not a company selling these, I am just a master automobile technician who decided to try it out.

  28. Keith Says:

    The only time there is significant HC in exhaust is when the engine is cold. Modern, that being post 1996 year models (inclusive) have preheated O2 sensors before and after the catalyst to monitor the effectiveness of the catalyst and to make minute adjustments in the fuel-air ratio.

    The only HC/CO from normal combustion is due to the parasitic effect of NOx formation, robbing the charge of available O2. Adding H2 would INCREASE formation of NOx, leading to poorer efficiency. In such a vehicle, the reduction catalyst will scrub these so the overall emissions might not change. But the catalyst will be operating outside of design, possibly leading to failure.

    Keep in mind, the 25-30% efficiency in gasoline engines is due to thermodynamics, not incomplete combustion. Modern cars have come a LONG WAY in reduction of tailpipe emissions.

    If these systems work so well, why haven’t the major automobile manufacturers incorporated them? Dispense with the conspiracy collusion between the oil and auto companies, we have the Prius and other high-efficiency models.

  29. chris Says:

    I fully understand engine operating systems, and just because a vehicle is made after 1996 (OBD2) does not mean all of their engine operating systems operate in the same manner. Most vehicles now(in the last couple year) tend to use front air/fuel ratio sensors, rear o2 sensors, and returnless fuel systems. The reason for this is to give the ECU more accurate control of the A/F ratio. The A/F ratio sensor stays at a constant voltage unless there is a problem in the system and the voltage fluctuates. Then the ECU will adjust accordingly. The voltage that most car makers use to monitor the A/F ratio sensor is 1.47 volts, which if you move the decimal one spot over equals 14.7. Stoichiometric air fuel ratios provide a more efficient burn, which is 14.7 parts air to 1 parts fuel. Now on to fuel, the reason car makers use a returnless fuel system is to give the fuel injectors a constant pressure. Which gives the ECU way better control of the A/F ratio. These systems usually incorporate an electronic fuel pressure regulator in the fuel tank, rather than a mechanical FPR on the fuel rail. There is absolutely no way you can compare a car from 1999 to a car from 2008, but they are both OBD2 vehicles. Vehicles that use a front and rear o2, and have a return fuel system have way less control of the A/F ratio than newer vehicles. I guarantee that a vehicle from 8 years ago will have higher HC than a vehicles from today when using a 5 gas analyzer. I see it everyday. I believe that if vehicles burned 100% of the A/F charge starting in 96, the car makers would have found the perfect system, and there would be no need to change it. But that is not the case, even now these systems are not perfect. I fully understand the inherent loss that occurs in an ICE due to heat. It is you that is failing to understand that there are computers controlling these engines and a stoichiometric air fuel ratio is not acheived every time. Therefore H2 could help in the combustion process. Also, I dont believe I ever mentioned a conspiracy as you said in your last statement. I am simply trying to help this technology along.

  30. TJ Says:

    Good article, but still incomplete and only theoretical. I deal in real world testing, not models.

    Please folks, this is not about violating any laws of thermodynamics. That’s where the naysayers are off their rockers.

    I’ve been doing this for years. Not all “HHO” devices are the same; there are better designs than others. The truth is, modern engines are fairly tightly controlled by the ECU via sensors. However, where the benefits of hydrogen supplementation come into play is by modifying the engine’s combustion dynamics resulting from the addition of the oxy-hydro; that being the AF and ignition timing characteristics.

    For those who say the engine may overheat and disintegrate are correct, however by monitoring and limiting your driving techniques, at partial load higher AF is attainable without worry. And what can aid in keeping the EGT (exhaust temps) from causing damage? Ah yes, water/methanol injection by vaporization. I use a CoolMist programmable system for that. Water injection was used in WW2 planes quite successfully.

    I’m comfortable with 20-25% increase in fuel efficiency. Do most “HHO” websites exaggerate results? Most certainly, but why throw the baby out with the bath water? Some of this is old, some is new, but to say it is BS comes from ignorance. The disadvantage is modern engines require tinkering. The good news is modern engines are much more adjustable once the electronics are figured out.

    Stoichiometric AF ratios are not necessary under partial load, ok? Research water vapor injection in addition to “HHO”.

    The bottom line is my engines would never achieve the results without “HHO”.

    Good luck.

  31. Norman Says:

    I said it before and I’ll say it again, HHO generators DO NOT make combustion more efficient. You achieve better gas mileage by burning hydrogen to do the work instead of gasoline.

  32. Norman Says:

    Oh, Keith, if you are looking for more reputable sources than youtube, please refer to post #16, the one that tells you to go to the Good Morning America website and search water car. KSAT has even run a brief on one.

  33. Norman Says:

    Oh yeah, Keith, I just re-read your post stating it would take 200 HP to create the electric current to make HHO, and the answer dawned on me.

    Quite simply the answer is leverage. The larger crankshaft pulley turns a smaller alternator pulley. Simple.

    It’s the same way four Army personnel can pull a 3 ton Humvee from a mud hole. A couple pulleys, a long rope, 4 guys, and some leverage.

    Also, at this point I’m not trying to run my truck soley on HHO, and through the use of capacitors and so on on a circuit board to modify the electrical input, the input required is dramatically decreased. And don’t ask me to explain that because I’m not an electrical engineer. But I’ve seen it and it works.

  34. Norman Says:

    By the way, did you know some belt driven superchargers use anywhere from 50-200 HP to make boost. To get a 40% increase in power. If you’ve got a 300 HP motor it could take 150 HP to make enough boost to make a 150 HP gain.

    Same concept for using HP consumed by the alternator to create fuel that will increase your gas mileage.

  35. chris Says:

    Norman- Please explain to me how “HHO” would not make the combustion process more efficient.
    Contrary to the beliefs on this blog, HC does exist as a tailpipe emission. The reason HC is present is due to unburnt fuel. I do agree that the fossil fuel can be leaned out when using hydrogen. I am not comfortable doing this on my own vehicle, if there is a problem in the hydrogen system and for some reason it stops producing you now have an engine running dangerously lean. Lean=heat=engine damage. I believe the fuel mileage increase is due to the fact that the flame front when igniting a gasoline/hydrogen mixture is much more violent, and burns more rapidly. Therefore you can advance the timing. So instead of the a piston doing work for 85% of the crank throw it is now doing work for 98% percent of the crank throw. Or whatever you choose to set timing at, depends on the application. Therefore you will be doing more work with the same amount of fuel.I believe it works well as a catalyst, but fossil fuel has to still be used. Otherwise you violate the conservation of energy. Do you have proof that it does not aid in the combustion process, or is that just a theory. Also it was stated in this blog that oxides of nitrogen, or NOx would increase. I have a problem with this, because I have tested my own car on the 5 gas analyzer. Nox was lower than the baseline test. It was stated that engine effiency would therefore be reduced. I believe I can explain the drop in NOx. Oxides of nitrogen are formed from heat and TIME. The longer a fuel charge burns the more NOX it will produce. Since the fuel charge is burning for less TIME noxious gasses are reduced. This is the only explaination I can come up with. This also explains why timing has to be modifyed. Do not believe people who say NOx will increase, they have obviously not done the tests.

  36. mr.vail Says:

    The process of Nothing! Creates Nothing, and
    Nothing will ever come from it!

    Therefore, we must dream, then give thought
    to what we have dreamed. Then Act upon it.

  37. Erik Says:


    I don’t want to act like I know everything because I don’t. I have recently started looking into these HHO systems and have noticed that the logic many people have used to discredit them is the same kind of logic that would discredit a turbocharger. Although turbochargers are proven to work, even though they take some energy from the engine they add more performance. Many people also ask “If these systems work so well, why haven’t the major automobile manufacturers incorporated them?” this is because of the time that goes into research, manufacturing, and overall production. A large company cannot just add a component in a week it takes time to make even a small change. Also I believe you said something about hydrogen being a poor fuel for a combustion engine? I would like to know your source for this. Since hydrogen burns very well, much better than gasoline, and also burns clean. I do not know whether or not I fully support the HHO systems, but I do know that it is something that is worth looking into. Because hydrogen burns well, and oxygen burns well, if this HHO gas is achieved without breaking the hydrogen bonds then it is a definite plus to be added to the current air gas mixture and can only help in the combustion, thus requiring less gas to be added to the mixture. If your engine was using an air gas mixture where the air was hydrogen, there would be no need for the gas since the hydrogen would combust and do everything without the gas. To say hydrogen is poor fuel only demostrates that you apparently do not know what you are talking about. Those major automobile manufacturers you where asking about are now releasing hydrogen powered cars that I remember reading about in junior high school. I am now a senior in college studying mechanical engineering. So I have taken classes like thermodynamics, heat transfer, dynamics, and things to have a good idea of what I am talking about. And although these systems look shady, I think that some are the real deal but there are also bound to be a lot of cheap wanna-bes out there. So for now I am not going to be buying into any but am definitely going to invest more time in researching it. Again I would not look at it as free energy but more like if you added a turbocharger or supercharger, which I know for a fact that some turbochargers can increase gas mileage, but again they do require some energy from the engine to function. It is upon functioning that they are able to benefit the whole system.

  38. Keith Says:

    Turbochargers work because they are able to extract energy from the exhaust gas. There is a significant temperature and pressure drop of the exhaust gas as it passes through the turbine. They do not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    But hydrogen, HHO, Brown’s gas or whatever the hucksters want to call it can not enable an engine to extract more work from a given quantity of energy. They want to believe but cannot explain. This is Pons and Fleishman all over again (cold fusion).

    If you think you have found some secret, prove it and get it to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. There are streamlined procedures for small inventors. If it has technical merit, you will become incredibly rich. There aren’t any “hit squads” from “big oil” and there isn’t any collusion between the automobile manufacturers and “big oil” any more than Frito Lay and Budweiser.

  39. Let’s say you have a 240 cu in engine, and that when you travel at 70 mph, the engine is doing 2400 rpms. Each cylindar sucks in gas vapor and air, compress it all, and when it gets to full compression, the spark plug ignites the gas. Each cylindar is responsible for 1/6 of the revolution, so that is 2400 times that each cylinder compreses 40 cubic inches.

    So the combined throughput of each cylindar is 960,000 cubic inches per minute.

    These HHO generators can generate about enough to fill up a balloon in 20 minutes.

    I can’t see it helping at all.

    Want to proove it works? Pick me up, and let’s drive to Houston and return. We will get a fillup of gas, and see what the mpg is.

    Then we make a second trip, and do the same.

    For positivie proof, one of the trips must be made with the device off, and the other one on, but the driver cannot know which trip is with it on, and which trip is with it off. That is a blind test. Until someone shows results with a blind test, I won’t be buying one.

  40. chris Says:

    Keith, Turbochargers work because they increase the volumetric effiency of the ICE. Hydroxy boosters increase the combustion effiency of the ICE. What is so hard to understand about that? There is no secret here. I dont understand how a man who appears to be so educated can be so ignorant. You say it is impossible to increase combustion effiency of an ICE, because the fuel is atomized. That is an incorrect statement that you have seemed to ignore. The catalytic converter on a vehicle retains O2 on the lean stroke of the O2 sensor, so that unburned fuel can be burned in the cat on the rich stroke of the O2 sensor. HC is present because all of the fuel charge is not burned all of the time. Try removing the catalyst from your vehicle and then test for HC, and then tell me that 100% of the fuel charge is burned. Stop using the 2nd law of thermodynamics to tell me its impossible, if you did the experiment you will see that you are increasing the thermodynamics of the ICE. There is no violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics here, and if so please tell me how. I work for Acura now, and if you hold an Acura wide open it runs at about a 13.2:1 A/F ratio. Test for hydrocarbon then, and then tell me the entire A/F charge is burned.

  41. Keith Says:

    Chris, exactly HOW is COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY improved? So you work for HONDA (Acura is a division of Honda)…since there is little chance of you actually working in Japan for Honda in their research division, it is safe to say you are a wrench spinner at some dealership. Wow. I am impressed. Especially with your complete lack of understanding how a closed-loop fuel injected gasoline engine actually works.

    The HC measured from an engine operating at IDLE will be HIGH because the manifold pressure (vacuum, actually) makes the effective compression ratio very low…this is how throttled gasoline (Otto cycle) engines vary the power. With this low effective compression ratio, combustion IS incomplete. HC is present pre-catalyst and is the greatest percentage wise but the actual mass flow rate is low due to the low manifold pressure. Once the manifold pressure increases (and there is where the turbocharger can increase it past atmospheric levels), the completeness of combustion increases, also forming NOx.

    Oxygen sensors enable the electronic control unit to constantly change the fuel trim to achieve stoichmetric combustion, that means keeping HC to a set level. Of course the NOx “steals” oxygen, leading to formation of HC BUT ANY ADDITIONAL HYDROGEN will also increase combustion temperature, leading to MORE NOx and consequently, more HC/CO.

    You can run your exhaust gas analysis all you want at idle and try to show improvemenr. But all cars get 0 miles per gallon at idle. Put that car on a dynometer and then try it. Shoot for a 25 Hp output and measure the fuel consumption rate. Then slap on your “snake vapor” contraption and dial in 25 Hp to check fuel consumption rate. Post results with 3rd party verification and I will cry “Uncle”.

  42. chris Says:

    Keith, please explain to me where I do not understand closed loop operation, I have no idea where you got that from. How dare you say “some wrench spinner at some dealership” I am willing to bet I have forgotten more about engine operating systems than you ever knew. I am willing to also bet that I have had way more education in this subject than you ever will, what is your profession again? I suggest you read #26 again, and then tell me who has the lack of knowledge. that post is meaningless, just a bunch of junk you spouted to make yourself “seem” educated on the subject of engine operating systems. Again please explain where I have a complete lack of closed loop operation on a fuel injected motor.

  43. chris Says:

    Also post #28 keith, I would love to school you on where you wrong there too.

  44. Keith Says:

    Right, Chris. Take your “cargo cult science” elsewhere.

    “Love to school you”? Why didn’t you? Cat got your fingers?

    Idle threats do not win the case, put up or shut up.

  45. MT Wolf Says:

    Wow this is a great argument thread here, I gotta say I would love to see some benchmarks (similar to AMD vs. INTEL on computers) (I am a IT tech as of 15 years, and I make my decisions based on research, results, and statistics). There is a whole bunch of us in NC that are thinking about going in on a group buying effort and equiping all our cars with these “snake mist devices”. I will be watching this thread closely to see who can come up with some ACTUAL RESULTS to prove or disprove the very engadging volley going on here. I have been on Google for the last 4 hours trying to find SOMETHING CONCLUSIVE. All I have found is some very informed people on the theories/laws in physics, but NO HARD EVIDENCE! Why?!?!? The guy further up the page has tested the emmisions, GO FOR THE GOLD, TEST THE FUEL ECONOMY!!!

    Anyway, pardon my interruption, read through the page again, and you will understand my frustration.

  46. Keith Says:

    MT Wolf, if you look critically at the “theories” (misleading term, they are all hypothetical blabber), you will find they gloss over real-world operating conditions.

    Yes, there is considerable hydrocarbon emissions when an engine is cool and it is idling. As I explained above, this is almost unavoidable in any engine modulated by a throttle plate when it is operating at idle. And all cars get 0 MPG at idle.

    Using the reduced HC/CO emissions at idle is the limitation of the mileage gains demonstratable with instrumentation. Well, there is the guy with video of the instant MPG display…unfortunately, it didn’t show the actual power output. Going downhill with a tailwind will do the same.

  47. chris Says:

    Keith, I believe you stated”better fuel burn? IMPOSSIBLE”. Now you are going back on your idiotic statement, why dont you just drop out of this blog. You just run your mouth with no data to back your claims.Hydrocarbon is evident as a tailpipe emission all of the time. The reason it is evident is due TO AN INCOMPLETE FUEL BURN. So if the fuel is not completely being burned, could you not use a catalyst to create a more efficient burn? Also you are wrong about emissions testing, they are performed on a dynamometer(or as you call it a dynometer, hehe). Also because I “spin wrenches” I guess that makes me uneducated according to you. Again, I have been to more schooling on engine operating systems than you ever will. I am a nissan senior engine specialist, and now a acura engine diagnostician. Call me what you want but I am more educated on this subject than you. That was very apparent when you mentioned cars after 1996 effectively burn 100% of the fuel air charge. That is the biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. You have no idea what you are talking about. Refer to #29 for a refresher where I had to correct your lack of knowledge on engine operating systems. Tell all of the guys at that they are not really saving fuel, I guess myself and and hundreds of other users of that site are all lying. I thought you mentioned you have played with hydrogen before, what just too stupid to get it to work for ya? You have to modify fuel trim. meaning you have to play with those sensor thingys keith. I know its alot for you to understand, but just try. It is apparent you understand ENGINE operation, but you do not understand engine operating systems. Also you failed to point out where I dont understand close loop operation, come on keith, point it out. Are you scared this wrench spinner might actually know more than you on this subject? Oh yeah, what was your profesion again? I will post a link of third party testing to shut your close minded mouth up.

  48. chris Says:

    Here is the link to third party testing One of the tests says that fuel mileage was increased when HC was reduced. Keith is the kind of person who will believe it when his physics professor says its ok to. These tests were done by a certified EPA and CARB testing sites. With no fuel trim modification. People this works, but modification to the vehicles computer must be made. Dont listen to the people who say it violates the laws of physics, we are not running the car of of it, merely supplementing the fossil fuel.

  49. Norman Says:

    Patents for these devices have been on the books for over a half century now.

    And a guy named Stan Meyers ran his dune buggy on just HHO. And his car. And was going to make a kit anyone could put on their car. Then he turned up dead. I’m not claiming foul play, but the timing is odd.

    How does burning hydrogen and oxygen violate any laws of thermodynamics or physics? Honda already makes a car that does run off hydrogen. But like Chris says, you gotta get into the electronics to make it work a regular vehicle.

  50. Keith Says:

    Patents expire. And part of Stan Meyer’s health problems was stress from losing a court case and having to refund $25,000 to investors he defrauded. That probably led to his cerebral aneurysm.

    Seems like that malady is common to the hydrogen acolytes and their cargo cult “science”.

  51. Steve Browne Says:

    Think about this. A four liter gasoline engine sucks in 4 liters of air and fuel every other revolution. At highway speeds the engine is turning around 2000 RPM. It is therefore sucking in 4 thousand liters of air and fuel every minute. A typical HHO generator produces less than one liter per minute. How can this tiny amount HHO have any impact on mileage? It just doesn’t add up.

  52. chris Says:

    Steve you are right, but your vehicle does not burn 4000 liters of fuel a minute. air fuel ratio is measured in pounds, 14.7 pounds of air to 1 pound of fuel.

  53. Keith Says:

    Ah, both Chris and Steve are a bit off..if a 4 liter engine is running at wide open throttle, it would be consuming 4000 liters per minute. But in a modern engine, that would be producing about 100-120 Hp. At typical brake specific fuel consumption of 0.35 pounds per Hp hour, that would place fuel consumption at 35-42 pounds per hour. At 6 pounds per gallon, that is 6-7 gallons per hour so at legal speeds, you would be looking at 10-12 miles per gallon.

    Since most vehicles operate with manifold pressures less than atmospheric due to the throttle plate restiction.

    Chris? Yes, air/fuel ratio is 14.7/1 That is by mass. Steve was talking about VOLUME…

    You can have a liter of air, a liter of gasoline or a liter of air/gasoline at the ratio of 14.7/1.

  54. chris Says:

    Keith, what do you mean if a 4 liter engine is running at WOT it would be consuming 4000 LPM? That makes no sense, exactly what is WOT, how many RPM? I understand that he was talking about volume, he was comparing the volume of air to the volume of hydrogen. They are not comparable, hydrogen is combustible. That is all I was trying to say.

  55. Keith Says:

    Wide Open Throttle. I forgot to add this would be at the 2000 RPM that Steve mentioned in his example.

    Manifold pressure equal to atmospheric pressure. When we talk about volumes of gases, we assume standard temperature and pressure (25 C, 101.3kPa )…pressure being most important here.

    And Steve’s example is valid, the volume of gasoline needed is TINY compared to the volume of air since gasoline is about 0.72 kg/liter and air is 1.32 GRAMS per liter. For that 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio, the volume of gasoline in such mixture would be 0.000125 liters of gasoline. That is about 0.025 teaspoon.

    Contrast with hydrogen…to run that engine off only hydrogen, the equivalent volume of hydrogen would be 0.40 liter in that 1 liter of air. But that would not burn completely as there is insufficient oxygen. Remember, about 1/2 the volume of that hydrogen generator’s output is oxygen.

    But that is trivial as there is no way to power a car from hydrogen generated using the alternator’s electrical output.

    When the throttle is closed, mainfold pressure drops. At idle, the manifold pressure is anywhere from 47-37 kPa, reducing the amount of air/fuel by more than half and the power by 90% of maximum.

    Power in an engine is the product of manifold pressure and engine speed.

  56. Glenn Says:

    That is why a man from Texas who was featured on fox news not only completed a working H2O engine but is now making military engines for aircrafts after showing his engine design to congress.

    You fail to demonstrate that Hydrogen burns much more efficently then gas and that also in a H2O vehicle, the intake is closed off giving your engine a CLEAN AIR intake, meaning no other gases other then Hydrogen and Oxygen will be inside. This makes it so that it will burn hotter and stronger and you won’t have as much loss as the typical gas engines which most gas is burned in the cadilitic convertor.

    Now I am not saying go out and buy your own H2O, in fact I am building my own and I have seen how much hydrogen comes out of the system run off the battery. You need 4 ounces of water to produce enough hydrogen for 100+ miles, that is about the size of a small baby bottle.

    Now the deliver is using natural pressure from a liquid turning into a gas and the natural vacuum of your car’s carberator. The Carb will suck in the gas as it comes in from your water chamber.

    The only problem there really is though is that hydrogen burns more efficiently then gas and is much lighter and requires much less to burn, so finding the parts to properly LIMIT how much hydrogen goes in at a time is the true challenge. Those who sayit doesn’t work from energy transfer physics don’t understand that it only takes 5 amps of the battery pulsing to create the needed hydrogen to burn nor understand the physics of burning gas against burning hydrogen. When you burn gas, it is a hydrogen and carbon based substance like all flammable fossil fuels. Your are eliminating the carbon when you use hydrogen and getting a more efficient and much stronger burnable substance in hydrogen. But don’t listen to me, go to Fox News main website and do a search for the man from Texas who did built his car and ran it off water. He also had a blow torch which was what gave him the idea to convert his car to water. The news did a good interview of him and showed the car running off water. Guess the news now posts false information on TV?

    Please, if you don’t understand the science, don’t sit there and blast false information out there to the public to scare people into accept what people like Bush want you to believe. Find out for ourselves and learn. Yes, what this guy mentioned about energy loss is somewhat true, but once you turn your engine over your alternator charges your battery at a rate of more then 5 amps which was needed to create the hydrogen for your engine. Then on top of that this guy failed to mentions the chemical understanding that hydrogen burns efficiently and much better then gas.

    Light a match and you see a light blue flame, like a match over hydrogen peroxide that has been sitting in sunlight and you will see a hotter, brighter flame because instead of being surrounded by nitrogen, it is surrounded by oxygen only. Well, hydrogen burning with only oxygen around it will burn very strong, very hot. The erason this is because hydrogen peroxide which is H2O2 breaks down in sunlight to H2O + O2 so you are left with water and Oxygen. There is a special chemical that will speed upthe process that begins with an M, forget what it is called though.

    Do the research, learn for yourselves. Don’t believe what people sell you on the internet or people trying to say against it. I didn’t buy the kit on the internet, I wouldn’t waste the money. But I did the research and built my own device which is almost complete now. The hydrogen does comes out and the delivery system is the last stage of my system. It works if you do it right, just don’t buy it off the internet, do it yourself.

  57. Glenn Says:

    There is no air to gas ratio with a hydrogen system. When water breaks down into Hydrogen it creates the exact number of hydrogen molecules ratio to the oxygen molecule ratio you need. 2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O so you are just really converting the hydrogen back to water when you burn it. So there is no oxygen issues with this system. If you don’t understand, I can go into much more detail but basically the system creates EXACTLY what you need to burn, that is why you don’t need an intake anymore because the oxygen is part of the equation.

    As for how much Hydrogen, as stated before hydrogen burns much more efficiently and since no other gases are present, it will burn stronger and hotter. 4 ounces gives you 100+ miles. The man who built the engine in Texas bragged this point many times as Fox news was showing his engine.

    Any gas or diesel engine can be converted, just a matter of knowing and understanding the science behind it. I got most of the parts from Home Depot. I did change the specs around though that I found because the design I was given was flawed (wires in water with epoxy, I rather use stainless steel only and some of the electrical components to pulse the current through the water I tweaked)! the only engine this hasn’t been tested on is hybrids.

  58. Glenn Says:

    As for rusting out your engine, yes hydrogen WILL rust out your exhaust very quickly and your engine will break down faster do to rust, but there is a fix. You can coat your engine in ceramic. It will cost some money but works. As for the exhaust, stainless steel exhaust systems work GREAT!

    Personally only heard of the ceramic coating but I heard great things from it. Anyone have insight on it. As for the hybrid of hydrogen and gas, I have seen and witnessed these hybrids being used close to where I lived and the guy who built his system spoke with me for an hour on his and my idea on making it a completely hydrogen system. The problem he has already is state tests because they are saying his system isn’t legal because the emissions are too low! Hmm, you have better emissions for the environment and the STATE is telling you there is a problem. That is Maryland for you! But his group is fighting the state on how he legally has the right to do what he wants to his engine as long as he isn’t hurting the environment and legally it will stand once the press gets involved. In fact, they will probably do what they did to everyone who did build a hydrogen system. They will pay them off.

    You think the Hydrogen systems are not out there because they don’t exist, really it is the gas companies and government who gets paid a lot of money in taxes from gas sales who pay off these people to not sell their invention. People take the quick money instead of helping the environment, us the people, and the economy so we can afford to take our children to get Ice Cream more then once a month!

    Like I said, don’t trust what people tell you, go outand learn for yourself. Trial and error is a great learning process. Take a 4 inch wide by 1 foot long pip and buy a piece of sheet metal. Put the sheet metal together but not touching, I used electrical tape to separate the pieces. cap the button with a screw on cap, all of this found at Home Depot! Drill 2 holes for screws, use rubber washers to seal! take the scrap stainless steel and use it to connect the screws inside to the plates. Screw the bottom on the pipe (You might need plumbers tape, I did)! Pour water in the top from your garden hose, then plug it in to your car battery using jumper cables! Watch the hydrogen come pouring out from between the sheets! The water level should be above the sheets at least. If you want to see pictures of my device in an early state, my email is and put Hydrogen as the subject so I know it isn’t spam!

    Anyone have questions or would like to shoot ideas off of me, I have been researching the subject for a while now and would love to hear your ideas. This pipe idea is an EARLY stage, I have already condensed the size of it further so that it would be almost flat for compact cars. Unlike most people, I don’t hide from the government and will be GLAD to share my work with others who are interested! When the time comes, I won’t take the money and hide, I rather sell my idea to the people and make my money that way watching the oil companies who took advantage of us suffer!

    If someone beats me to it, then GREAT! That guy in Texas, he made a huge mistake not selling his idea and taking the government job. He could have been rich, most people would have paid $1000+ for a system to be installed in their vehicle.

    Oh, one thing I forgot to mention, you will need a CHT gauge which will measure the heat on your 3rd spark plug (your car heat guage is too slow). This is important when converting gas to hydrogen as you have to make sure you don’t over heat your engine.

    What I love is people talking about the physics of this science. A combusion engine is derived from an explosion happening in a small chamber where your spark plugs go that pushes down by the force of the explosion the pistons that will spin your engine. Now the explosions happen in an order so that the engine spins efficiently and fast. Well, it takes less hydrogen (no carbon in hydrogen from water unlike fossil fuels making it much lighter and much more efficient to burn) to push that piston down. People talk about horsepower and stuff like that, but how can you measure a hydrogen engine when you never seen one. Talk physics all you want by hydrogen burns and you can turn ANYTHING that burns into energy so I think it is funny that people talk physics but leave out the key factors that would prove their case flawed. Like oxygen environment which makes it burn hotter and stronger or the fact that you are burning the same hydrogen found in fossil fuels. Gas isn’t free energy, it actually costs a lot now and in fact is the combination of pressure and heat on organic substances over long periods of time.

    There was a man who took used oil and used it to power his house. If it burns, you can make it into energy. Depends on how much energy you are trying to make with what, but hydrogen vehicles that are H2O based are possible and realistic and I will talk hours with anyone who wants to talk on the subject as I posted my e-mail in here freely!

  59. Keith Says:

    Glenn, you missed energy balance in all of your “analysis”. If you manage to power an engine using only hydrogen/oxygen produced by electrolysis powered by the alternator, you have indeed developed perpertual motion.

    And that is IMPOSSIBLE.

  60. chris Says:

    Keith, you mentioned in post #15 that you had experimented with these same systems. Why did you study them? What exactly were your tests and results? Also, I completely understand that liquid gasoline has around 300 times the energy of gaseous hydrogen. So 1 liter of gasoline is way more powerful than 1 liter of gaseous hydrogen. Most electrolysis kits that are being made now produce about 1 LPM. Vehicles do not burn gas at a rate of 1 LPM. Say you are traveling at 60mph, and your vehicle gets 20mpg. There is 3.78 liters in a gallon. So on average, your vehicle would be using .05 gallons per minute or mile, or .189 liters of fuel per minute or mile. Now I know that 1.89 liters of gas still has way more energy than 1 liter of gaseous hydrogen, but couldnt this 1 LPM of hydrogen help? Especially if the combustion effiency is not 100% which it will never be. I have read books that state otto cycle engines are 98% efficient in the COMBUSTION PROCESS. Now these tests were done in controlled labatory conditions, and the fuel was pure hydrocarbon. Now, since this is not the case in real world applications, couldnt hydrogen be used to create a more efficient combustion? I am doing my own study as I have mentioned in earlier posts, and I am very excited with my results. I have to admit its very fun to say the least, its a challenge to balance hydrogen injection and fuel trim modification, especially when the operating system on my vehicle is set up to manage gasoline. But my o2 sensors see it, I can see that on my scan tool. My short term fuel trim wave form goes crazy, and then starts to climb lean. I have my system on a toggle, and I can turn it on and off and see instant differences in fuel trim. So I just dont understand how you can think this is bogus science or as you call it “cargo cult science”. Especially when you have tried it yourself. There are people who are getting this to work keith, I can send you scan tool data and 5 gas analysis data if you are interested. Now I konw this might not be acceptable data for you but it proves that it works on my vehicle.

  61. scott Says:

    I once watched a man turn a lump of coal into a diamond on you tube,he was very convincing,yet we all know you cant make diamonds in a bbq pit using a blow torch and secret sauce.I watched a man open a locked car with his cell phone,looks like it worked, but we all know it was a trick. As for fox news, a person who believes anything they say hasn’t completed high school yet.I have tried the devise the motor ran, it drove and performed like usual,as for increased mpg,no, no increase in mpg,lower emission yes, not that much though I wouldnt buy another unit

  62. Norman Says:

    Keith, Glenn’s device isn’t perpetual motion because you have to add water. It’s the same reason a regular gas engine isn’t perpetual motion.

    And how many instances of these devices working do you have to see before you will concede that even though YOU can’t seem to figure out how it works that somehow it does. You have the same attitude as the rest of the scientific community. When something new and groundbreaking comes along it’s “That’ll never work.” Then it’s “I can’t believe that works.” And last it’s “I knew that would work all along.”

  63. Darren Glover Says:

    To whom it may concern. I have a custom 1998 F150 with 37.5 TSL tires and 10″ of lift I get very poor gas mileage. I set up and installed my own HHO system based off of 6 months of extensive research. (I am currently working in a engineering capacity at a major acft company) This system was put in and ran for 2 months and it showed promise. I am amazed at the amount of bad information on the internet, 1st for those of you who do not kno you do not combine salt with water and accomplish electralysis on it. The salt (sodium chloride) will create small amouts of a dangerous substance called chlorine gas and the by product is a hydrochloric acid. Just because it is shown on you tube does not make it safe. Anyway I accomplished metered tests off full tanks of gas and with the system off i received 8.2 MPG on the hughway and 10.46 MPG in the city (note highway is more due to the tire size and rpms running around 3200 vs 1500 in the city) I then accomplished metered full tests with the HHO system on and received 10.51 MPG on the highway and 12.42 MPG in the city. I felt it was significant enough to keep it installed. Now for the rest of the story. The intake plenum on newer vehicles are plasitc on the lower half I went to my truck and one morning 2 weeks ago and started it. After the dust cleared and and all my neighbors were woke up I realized I had blown the intake manifold off my truck. What had happened is th hydrogen is sucked into the intake lower plenum by vacuum and stored there, I took my time after turning on the key before actually cranking it up the hydrogen is so combutable and the chamber is not designed for fuel (vehicle has port injection)any backfire or source of ignition or not seated valve will have disatrous affects. Yes hydrogen works and improves mileage,but is everyone aware you have a hydrogen bomb under your hoo? does this make you feel safe? water4gas has a flash suppresent yeah right it only [protests a 6 ” hose from the supressant to the bottles ther is no way to protect the inside of the manifold.

  64. I.m on electrical eng. field. With some understanding on Carnot principles. A three liter four stroke gas engine running at 2500 rpm that produces about 100hp will such in 3,750 liters of air per minute mixed in with the fuel. A 12 volt, 30 amp fuel cell(the ones sold over the internet), the sellers claims it will produce 2 liters of hydrogen and 1 liter of oxigen per minute. ( ????) Calculating. that only 18% air is oxigen, and at 100hp only 70% of that is ever used in the combustion process. We come out with approx+-472 liter of oxigen used in the reaction. 1 liter of oxigen against 472? I must be a gimmic. We can also consider the kinetic energy of the system. Hydrogen-oxigen burns at 5500 F. And Gasoline 1800 F. A factor for V square of the kinetic and it’s connection to temperature. It’s 9.3 times the force of gasoline.

  65. restaurant jobs detroit…

    The 200 known planets that orbit other stars exhibit incredible variety. Among them are a handful of worlds that weigh between 5 and 15 times Earth. Astronomers believe these“ super- Earths” are rocky iceballs rather than gas giants like Jupiter. W…

  66. darkness_and_light Says:

    Presumably in a hydrogen fuel car you begin with water, electrolysis splits the water molecules into H2 and O2 molecules, combustion occurs and at the end of combustion you are left with H2O. Since the water molecule returns the the same state it won’t have added more energy to combustion then it took to split it into H2 and O2. We can conclude that adding H2 and O to an engine simply as an supplementary fuel source will not improve the efficiency of the engine. In fact I can’t see a purely hydrogen engine working with only water in the tank. If you can producing more energy from the combustion of H2 and O2 then it took to separate them while returning to the original state you’ve achieved a perpetual motion machine. I’m the engine produces enough energy to move a car, surely it can move a pump and return the water back to the tank.

    Thus, in order for hydrogen to improve the efficiency of the engine it must do one or some combination of the following: enable a more complete burn of the gasoline, interact with the fuel/air fixture and release more energy by having the molecules change to a lower energy state then combustion without hydrogen, improve the thermal efficiency of the engine, or improve the mechanical efficiency of the engine.

    The combustion of fuel being 98% efficient at a 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio sounds reasonable. It doesn’t happen all the time but that has to do with reasons hydrogen in the mixture wouldn’t be able to change. A 2% efficiency gain would be nothing to sneeze at but gains would likely be far less then that and wouldn’t be enough to support the mileage claims by itself. I also have my doubts hydrogen added to gasoline would make a difference to combustion. If simply adding hydrogen could make such a radical change to the resultants it would be impossible to keep it secret. Using hydrogen to allow more timing advance/higher compression ratios (I don’t see how it would do that but I’ll let that go) sounds like a horrible idea to me. Most people run their cars without changing or checking their oil or coolant, adding another point of failure and using a more aggressive tune sounds like a recipe for predetonation and a wrecked engine. We don’t even use water injection on most cars and it is a much more mature and proven technology. Finally, hydrogen won’t improve mechanical efficiency, no one even claims it would.

    So without even touching on the logistics of storage, the efficiency and capacity of the electrolysis devices, or the rate of consumption by an engine, hydrogen can generally be discounted as a method of improving mileage. I’m skeptical of anecdotal evidence because if it is really possible why bother with a car at all? Strap a water tank to a generator run purely on HHO and sell the power to the utility company.

  67. John Penry Says:

    NBC dateline
    Looks like NBC news has exposed the HHO claim to be fraudulent at best. Too bad no local news folks did the same with Cambridge Auto.

  68. takia Says:

    oh what no response? what did you not hear what your wanted to hear? what happened with the testing?

  69. Our older son is far too impatient to sit in the Epsom salt baths. We finally gave up a switched to a supplement call methylsulfonylmethane (MSM). It is two methyl groups attached to a sulfoxide group and the body will convert it to sulfate if (a big if) the body’s transulfuration pathway is working correctly. It worked great for our son, no more red ears and a significant improvement in his chronic allergic shiners.

  70. Aztek Says:

    I began experimenting with an on-board HHO generator on my 1996 Ford Explorer 3L 4WD Summer of 2009. It was a struggle due to lack of tools (I was Summering in Colorado) and the resultant electronic problems (many “check engine” warnings). After many modifications I identified a proprietary “soft flash” microchip which, when wired into the OBDII port, obviates all of these problems and very substantially increases fuel economy (30-40%) My oil as viewed on the dipstick is also incredibly clear after 8000 miles. I live in mountainous Arizona, and the Ford plus my 1999 Nissan Maxima typically climb 7-8 mile steep grades in OVERDRIVE cresting at 65-75 MPH. My wife remarked to me that she needed to adjust the accelerator pedal pressure she usually employs because the vehicles’ tendency to otherwise accelerate too quickly. Anecdotal? Yes, but this is from thousands of miles of personal experience. Armchair critics (and I have encountered many locally including engineer friends) have closed minds and should perform hands-on experimentation before passing negative judgments.

  71. Augustus Says:

    I am regular reader, how are you everybody?
    This paragraph posted at this site is actually fastidious.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: