# HHO Fuel system



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

It is here at last, what we have all been waiting for. Honest.






cabby


----------



## javea (Jun 8, 2007)

I was at the launch of the Porsche Cayman last week and the gentleman from Porsche UK doing the presentation told the assembled guests that they have actually produced an engine which delivers 900 bhp at 90 mpg. He didn't go into detail so it will be interesting to see what powers it when they go totally public.

Mike


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

It all sounds like a load of ball cocks to me :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## davesport (Nov 12, 2006)

OMG ! That's totes amazeballs...I'm well Jel...

There are some really clever people out there inventing "stuff" 

Can I fit this too my van ?

It's not April yet, but not long to go


----------



## davesport (Nov 12, 2006)

OMG ! That's totes amazeballs...I'm well Jel...

There are some really clever people out there inventing "stuff" 

Can I fit this too my van ?  

Discuss.

(Ducks & runs for cover)


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

We've been through this all before.

It is feasible (in theory) to run a car on "water", but not to get better fuel economy! AND it is simply not possible to produce enough gas from a jam jar in the volumes required.

Energy in = energy out. A fundamental law of physics!!

Where does the energy come from to electrolyse the water?? They are suggesting that the energy gained from the electrolytic gases is greater than that required to produce them. That is utter rowlocks!!

Dave 

P.S. No doubt this will run on to become another pointless debate between those who believe snake oil exists - and the others who *don't *have fairies at the bottom of their gardens! :lol: :lol:

P.P.S. There are other systems involving the use of water which *may *have a benefit in certain engine types and configurations . . . but that's not what is being suggested here!


----------



## Ian_n_Suzy (Feb 15, 2009)

Slightly off topic. But nonetheless very interesting article I read last week regarding a fusion project, at Lockheed Martins Skunk Works (interesting video in the link also).

When you look at some of the stuff Lockheed Martin has achieved in the past, you've got to give the claims some credence (SR-71 Blackbird, P38 Lightning, P-80 Shooting Star, U-2 Spy Plane, Galaxy, Starlifter, F35 Lightning II).

http://www.dvice.com/2013-2-22/lockheeds-skunk-works-promises-fusion-power-four-years


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

HHO?

Only because the Americans don't know how to get a subscript 2 on their keyboards :lol:

PS

Does anyone have the formula for snake oil?

I did "A" Level (organic) Chemistry so should be able to knock some up!


----------



## listerdiesel (Aug 3, 2012)

Amazing that people still fall for many 'snake oil' devices, like fuel pressure regulators, magnets on your fuel pipes to affect the ions in the fuel and so forth.

These were around in the early 1960's, Car Mechanics and other magazines carried full-page adverts for all these devices, and they are still out there.

H²O devices are mainly demonstration, there was a thread on here about 4 months ago when it was all sorted through and as usual, the believers stood up for their beliefs and the naysayers shouted them down.

Until I see scientific proof and a working example that I can see on my own vehicle first, I'll continue to doubt the claims.

Peter

PS: Alt 253 gives you superscript 2.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Alt +253 give 3 little dings on mine, a Chrome issue no doubt.

Charmap seems to be working as normal though ǃǄƸƢ


ƇĦĖĚƦƧ ĶĘɅ 

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## aircool (Jul 13, 2009)

javea said:


> I was at the launch of the Porsche Cayman last week and the gentleman from Porsche UK doing the presentation told the assembled guests that they have actually produced an engine which delivers 900 bhp at 90 mpg. He didn't go into detail so it will be interesting to see what powers it when they go totally public.
> 
> Mike


Thats the 918, the engine only produces 580HP and is supplemented with two electric motors and is hybridised hence the apparent "90MPG".


----------



## Remus (Feb 10, 2011)

This is the stuff I power my sleigh with when the reindeers are too tired.
Santa.
HHO! HHO! HHO!


----------



## Hydrocell (Jan 29, 2011)

Hi Cabby 

I’ve not only seen one I’ve been using one for the past four years, the difference between the one in the video are the old style unit, which do work, but not suitable for European vehicles, however the one that I use is called a Drycell, it produces hydrogen the same way as the one in the VT.
I’ve been getting extra 30% mpg on average across the different vans that I have used it on.
On my Rapido 9048df I get 34.5mpg on long distance run I have recorded 38 to 41mpg


----------



## Ian_n_Suzy (Feb 15, 2009)

Hydrocell said:


> On my Rapido 9048df I get 34.5mpg on long distance run I have recorded 38 to 41mpg


I bet that has made a few of you sit up and listen (well it did me).


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Ian_n_Suzy said:


> Hydrocell said:
> 
> 
> > On my Rapido 9048df I get 34.5mpg on long distance run I have recorded 38 to 41mpg
> ...


Afraid not. The laws of physics cannot be fudged!

It's more likely to result from the Hawthorne Effect.

Dave


----------



## Ian_n_Suzy (Feb 15, 2009)

Zebedee said:


> Ian_n_Suzy said:
> 
> 
> > Hydrocell said:
> ...


Surely you wouldn't sustain the effect for 4 years? (and can the onboard MPG computer succumb to it also as I presume this is where the MPG figures come from).


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Hydrocell

I get roughly the same consumption as you do. 34mpg-39mpg

I must look closer under the bonnet to see if I can find the magic gizmo.


----------



## Ian_n_Suzy (Feb 15, 2009)

pippin said:


> Hydrocell
> 
> I get roughly the same consumption as you do. 34mpg-39mpg.


Herein possibly lies the answer then. Thanks.

(I can't get over 25mpg and more often 22mpg and that's with a remap for fuel economy).


----------



## pippin (Nov 15, 2007)

Why don't you bung in a Ford Transit 2.2 litre 140ps engine?

That's what does it for us!


----------



## Ian_n_Suzy (Feb 15, 2009)

pippin said:


> Why don't you bung in a Ford Transit 2.2 litre 140ps engine?
> 
> That's what does it for us!


My last Van had the 2.4 Transit engine in (I loved it, thought it was a superb engine). That would average about 25mpg for us.

I think alot of it with us is down to whom and what we carry around (always 2 adults, 2 kids, a dog and fully loaded to about max payload).


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

pippin said:


> HydrocellI get roughly the same consumption as you do. 34mpg-39mpg
> I must look closer under the bonnet to see if I can find the magic gizmo.


So do I Pippin.

Rarely less than 34mpg, and I have had 43mpg when dawdling round the deserted country roads in France. Mind you - I *do *mean dawdling!!

My overall average is 34 -35mpg - from fill to fill, although the onboard computer is surprisingly accurate.

Dave


----------



## Ian_n_Suzy (Feb 15, 2009)

I am taking Hydrocells van to be an A class (its what I thought the 9048DF to be) if this is the case then his figures still seem very good for an A class van (similar to our own).

Obviously if its a smaller low profile Van, then I could understand the MPG figure jumping considerably (I don't know if we are comparing eggs with eggs).

* I am not saying any of these devices work, as it does seems to good to be true. However, that still doesn't stop it being an interesting topic to me.


----------



## 747 (Oct 2, 2009)

There are too many sceptics on this forum.

I have been running my transport on water for years.

Oh yes, nearly forgot. A bale of hay as well. :lol:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Zebedee said:


> It's more likely to result from the Hawthorne Effect.
> Dave


I had to look that one up


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> Zebedee said:
> 
> 
> > It's more likely to result from the Hawthorne Effect.
> ...


I qualified as a Work Study Engineer about 100 years ago - and much good it did me. :roll:

Look up Stakhanovism as well. That's quite an interesting one, and I doubt if Aleksei Grigorievich was very popular with his mates!! :lol: :lol:

Dave


----------



## Hydrocell (Jan 29, 2011)

The only people that are blind are the ones that can not see, one of you other van was an Auto trail Apache as a test I took everything out from the van including cushions and folding table and took it for a 40 mile run just to see what the mpg would be the average was 24mpg and before you say the trip is not accurate zeb, I filled the tank to brim took the mileage and at the end of the run I filled it back to the brim then dun the math and using 4.55ltr per gallon not 5ltrs.
Run the same test after fitting the drycell same procedure same mileage same speed same calculation and got 31mpg.

So believe it or not it doesn’t matter, I’m making the savings that’s all that matters to me.
One other thing before I go it has also reduced my emissions by 80% and it’s been tested by my local MOT station and they couldn’t believe what he was seeing on the printout, so he tested it with and without the cell working. 

Regards
Ray


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Hi Ray

Any chance you could post a copy of those emissions printouts please.

You are right - I am a total unbeliever, but that's not to say I have a completely closed mind! :roll: 

Dave  

P.S. Filling your tank to the brim, then using only just over one gallon before filling again is not going to give a very accurate result. You would need to run the tests over at least 500 miles to achieve a decent level of statistical significance. Even then it would have to be the same 500 miles in the same atmospheric conditions, at similar speeds etc..

Show me the proof and my hat goes into a humble pie at once! :wink:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Hydrocell said:


> The only people that are blind are the ones that can not see, one of you other van was an Auto trail Apache as a test I took everything out from the van including cushions and folding table and took it for a 40 mile run just to see what the mpg would be the average was 24mpg and before you say the trip is not accurate zeb, I filled the tank to brim took the mileage and at the end of the run I filled it back to the brim then dun the math and using 4.55ltr per gallon not 5ltrs.
> Run the same test after fitting the drycell same procedure same mileage same speed same calculation and got 31mpg.
> 
> So believe it or not it doesn't matter, I'm making the savings that's all that matters to me.
> ...


Do you have any links to information Ray, I firmly believe that one day the laws of physics as we know it will be re-written, but not sure it's happened yet though, but you have to keep an open mind and a closed wallet.

Like Scotty said " ye canny change the laws of physics captain", but they can possibly be added to as we learn more.


----------



## rosalan (Aug 24, 2009)

I do not know what to believe but found this hydrogen generator.
http://waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html would that be enough hydrogen to move a car?

Do the plates burn away?

Talking without a knowledge base; just interest.

Alan


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I've been looking at a few of these wonders of modern science over the last hour or so, and I'm amazed at how much information (all going whoosh over my head) that they give out, surely if you had a system which ran as economically and efficiently as they purport them to be, then why give the game away, why not just fit it to your car and just tell everyone what you have but not how it works, let the big boys see it working let them do tests to prove it does work, and then licence it, it would be bigger than Microsoft in days, it would help the environment immensely, reversing global warming, and who knows what other benefits to mankind as a whole.

Or give it away freely, one or the other would make sense, but as it is, it's not very believable, no matter what MPG is claimed by very few people, people are very gullible and want to believe.

I'll have more faith when Audi adopt it, as they're one of the few companies who actually pay more than lip service to saving fuel.


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

They ran a programme on telly last year or the year before, where they scientifically tested one of theses devices with the company selling them. Result? Zero, no measurable difference.

One of the Rv's guys fitted one and had the same result, zero.

Ian


----------

