# HHO Cell to give greatly increased mpg



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*
Al The Pirate has been working on making an HHO cell, to fit to his big blue pirate truck "Guano."

The cell is a simple unit that converts water into its component parts, 2Hydrogen and 1 oxygen.

So far we have fitted a cell unit to my little Peugeot 306 1.9TD which did 45mpg. After the cells were fitted my fuel economy increased to 65mpg!!!!!! The engine ran smoother, quieter! IT REALLY WORKS.

Now we have to make a 6 pack for our motorhome, it being a 5.8 diesel.

If any one wants any information do e-mail or come and talk to us somewhere on the Algarve this winter.

We also have a CB radio for when we are on the move.*


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

bluepirate said:


> *
> Al The Pirate has been working on making an HHO cell, to fit to his big blue pirate truck "Guano."
> 
> The cell is a simple unit that converts water into its component parts, 2Hydrogen and 1 oxygen.
> ...


*

they do indeed work,i have seen it working on a buddys 4x4,im just getting my head around it,and i will building some cells myself.*


----------



## daichi (May 9, 2005)

OK now I'm interested!!, what is this cell thingy and how does it work??


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

daichi said:


> OK now I'm interested!!, what is this cell thingy and how does it work??


Not too interested I hope daichi you will be very dissapointed.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

daichi said:


> OK now I'm interested!!, what is this cell thingy and how does it work??


I know this won't be popular with the converts, but I would seriously suggest you read ::this:: and ::this:: just for a start, then make up your own mind.

Just because you read it on the Internet doesn't mean it's true - whether it's for or against - so decide for yourself. 8O 8O

A final thought!!! Don't you think Nuke would be selling them like hot cakes - if they were any good??

Have a look at ::this:: just for fun. This is THE classic hoax, and it fooled millions!!


----------



## daichi (May 9, 2005)

Now I'm confused!! am I missing something? is it highly dangerous, or does the cost outweigh the advantages? Are the increased mileage figures being massaged?


----------



## daichi (May 9, 2005)

Thanks for that Zeb, its all clear now, but just for a moment, well anyway maybe one day, eh! It all sounds so simple, but it just doesnt add up when you look at the facts and figures, and who needs a burnt out engine. I also notice on that website, no takers for the million dollar challenge, hows about it all you converts,


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

daichi said:


> Now I'm confused!! am I missing something? is it highly dangerous, or does the cost outweigh the advantages? Are the increased mileage figures being massaged?


If it does work daichi _(and I'm willing to be convinced by genuine, verifiable data and erudite scientific explanation)_ it will be the only example I know of where you get something worthwhile for nothing!!

Just for a start, the principle of the internal combustion engine is to turn a very small volume of (usually) liquid into a comparatively huge volume of gas, the pressure of which drives the piston down and generates the power.

One of the quoted websites (on this or the other similar thread) states that a perfectly balanced mixture of HHO _(which probably cannot exist in the physical world anyway)_ implodes and creates a massive amount of "vacuum energy" _(vacuum *energy*???_).

So - you persuade a tiny volume of diesel to expand hugely into gas, generating great pressure . . . .

At the same instant a comparatively large volume of added HHO implodes, shrinking to almost nothing and creating a vacuum.

One doesn't need a Ph.D. to spot the snag in this example. 8O 8O 8O

Read the links I posted, and any others you can find before you spend your money or risk ruining your engine. I think you will be able to reach a conclusion fairly easily!

_(Edit) Sorry daichi - your reply arrived while I was typing. I'll leave this here anyway. It might be interesting to some members._


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

Nothing personal daichi but if something works then it will be in the shops and built into new cars. If it sounds like it works but doesn't then it is only a specific part of the population that will exchange their cash for it. Pyramid selling parties were full of them.


----------



## WSandME (May 16, 2007)

_Just for a start, the principle of the internal combustion engine is to turn a very small volume of (usually) liquid into a comparatively huge volume of gas, the pressure of which drives the piston down and generates the power. _

This may be part of it, but I thought that the heat generated by the exothermic reaction of petrol burning _in air_ caused the _air_ in the input charge to expand (as well as the other products of combustion).

In the same way, H2, + O would generate heat which would expand the air carrying the charge, so generating power.

Now, I suspect we all know that there's no such thing as a free lunch, but other hybrids _do_ achieve better _on street_ economy by using energy taken from somewhere else. E.g charging batteries up from the mains, recovering braking energy &c.

If we could arrange for eg braking energy to decompose water into it's constituents with an efficiency greater than that needed to carry around the mechanism to do the conversion and store and use the products, then we're on a winner.

If we use mains electricity to do the decomposition and storage (compression), we may still find that the energy extracted from the mains is cheaper than that extracted from petroleum products (taxed as they are).

Of course, as soon as it becomes apparent that people are using such a method, HMG will require that you pay taxes equivalent to petrol on the electricity you use to decompose the water :~( Just wait until LPG becomes popular - dammit, HMG are already taxing chip fat if you use it in your vehicle.

NB, None of the above should be construed as an admition that any such product exists, or is viable :~)


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

zebedee are you going to the global really?
i should have mine up and running by then,and you will be able to see one working in the flesh, so to speak.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

chrisgreen said:


> zebedee are you going to the global really?
> i should have mine up and running by then,and you will be able to see one working in the flesh, so to speak.


Unfortunately not Chris.

You may have noticed just a teensy hint of skepticism ( 8O 8O ) but never let it be said I have a closed mind, and I would be delighted to be proved wrong. It would save me a lot of money too. 8O :lol: :lol:

I do however need proof in the form of verifiable and repeatable data, and a credible scientific explanation of both theory and practical application before I attempt to prise open my wallet.

_None of this is getting at you of course_ - I just don't believe Professor Brown has discovered the Golden Fleece!!!


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

dave
im the biggest skeptic when it comes to things like this, but having seen it working i must admit,im took in by it?
im just an common bricklayer,so dont expect me to understand the science of it,but building a cell will be no problem and cost will be minimal.
so i will try it and see for myself.
as i said i will post the outcome,good or bad.


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

oh and another thing.

MAN DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON.LOL


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

chrisgreen said:


> dave
> im the biggest skeptic when it comes to things like this, but having seen it working i must admit,im took in by it?
> im just an common bricklayer,so dont expect me to understand the science of it,but building a cell will be no problem and cost will be minimal.
> so i will try it and see for myself.
> as i said i will post the outcome,good or bad.


I can't lay bricks Chris, so I guess that makes us even.  

Anyway - what's _common _about being a brickie. :lol: :lol: :lol:

_Face _it, I _engineered _that joke a bit. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

HI all iseem to have stired a hornets nest here  my HHO cell is working fine with more power and mpg and no detrimental effects.
This technology has been kept quiet for years it works because the gas entering the engine manifold is more volatile with the added HHO so you 
get more power for less fuel.

more people are making and fitting these evryday.are they all wrong?
one more point a carburretor fitted to a 1000cc car that does 200mpg has been invented and blocked by the big oil companies .so its not in production .

KEEP PAYING YOUR TAXES YOU UNBELIEVERS
AL thePIRATE


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

bluepirate said:


> HI all iseem to have stired a hornets nest here  my HHO cell is working fine with more power and mpg and no detrimental effects.
> This technology has been kept quiet for years it works because the gas entering the engine manifold is more volatile with the added HHO so you
> get more power for less fuel.
> 
> ...


you are right.
first patent in 1920----classified by the us government?


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

I build two last night - using old baked bean cans and the control knobs off a broken dishwasher.

Being adventurous I wired them back to back.

Now my motorhome is hovering 400 feet over my garage. How do I get it back to ground in a controlled manner ?

Should I have a pilot's licence for it ?

Sh1t, if I'd wired them the other way round it might now be 400 feet below ground.

PS Will the insurance pay out ?

PPS Can anyone lend me a L O N G ladder.


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

lets not get stupid about this 

dont knock what you have not tried 

remember when the world was thought to be flat

keep paying the taxes 

AL


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

hilldweller said:


> I build two last night - using old baked bean cans and the control knobs off a broken dishwasher.
> 
> Being adventurous I wired them back to back.
> 
> ...


what a pointless post the above is,knows jack about the subject and thinks a little bit of ridicule is needed.

great post buddy,bet all the other members are proud of you?


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

bluepirate said:


> lets not get stupid about this
> 
> dont knock what you have not tried
> 
> ...


bluepirate you started it.

The energy to disassociate hydrogen from water is similar to that gained when putting it back together by burning it. Adding mass to the air going in by introducing a small amount of ordinary water can be made to increase the power produced in some engines (particularly gas turbines) but that is to do with thermodynamics and not snake oil.


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

it works for me so im happy 
if you are happy with your fuel guzzling set up and like paying the price
im happy with that as well 

AL


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

chrisgreen said:


> what a pointless post the above is,knows jack about the subject and thinks a little bit of ridicule is needed.
> great post buddy,bet all the other members are proud of you?


Bit of ridicule - I thought that was a whole shedload of ridicule.

Hey, don't take it personally.

I've not even looked at the initial claims but I known there's not a hope in hell of it being viable otherwise it would be in every F1 car today.

Yes, they did indeed think the world was flat a long time ago but there is no comparison between that scam of the churches and simple physics and chemistry of today. Hell the USA is full of folk who will not admit Darwin is correct even today.

I do however believe we are as thick as pig s**t and one day we will discover anti-gravity and travelling at the speed of light, pity is I doubt I will live long enough to see this.


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

bluepirate said:


> it works for me so im happy
> if you are happy with your fuel guzzling set up and like paying the price
> im happy with that as well
> 
> AL


Sorry bluepirate with the greatest respect, you haven't been paying attention. It doesn't work for you either...........


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

Hey,

(_Offensive remark removed by Moderator. This is a fascinating, if contentious topic. Please do not spoil it with personally insulting remarks. See _::here::)

You have to think logically about this. And you are indeed correct, few of us today do have any logic, instead needing to be told to do everything in our lives, we even have to be told when to cross a road! If the HHO cell is true and it does indeed work, then those in control, the people _behind_ the government, those who have massive financial interests in oil, the media, and ultimately control of us all, something like this is really BAD NEWS! ...like someone having proof that God doesn't exist, or that there is FREE energy. imagine, if we all had access to FREE energy, the world would be in chaos. Governments would lose control of us all. Your arguements have little credibility given that you have yet to try the HHO cell. (I am Mrs Bluepirate) All i know is that one has been fitted to my car and my mpg has jumped 29.9%. Nothing else has been done to my car but the fitting of the HHO cell, so in my logical mind it works. Else i am experiencing a miracle of unbelievable proportions and should perhaps get the church involved. But i don't believe in God, so He isn't the cause behind it all. ....but then there is much you don't know about us. we found the secret hideout of Osama bin Laden whilst driving our motorhome in Pakistan, yet didn't receive a cent of the $billions reward. I suppose you won't believe that either!
Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## bognormike (May 10, 2005)

Well I thought you were serious about this until I read the last 2 sentences :roll: 
And if you don't believe in god, Why Do You Use Capital Letters? :?


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm an ex f1 engine designer, and we have looked into it.

i have a close relationship with a company developing this technology for the uk mod.

it has nothing to do with calorific values or kw's in and out or thermodynamics.

it works by modification of the combustion process. it does work.

remember air is 76% nitrogen which does not support combustion.

i won't go into the chemistry, it is very complex.
most OEM's are working on this kind of system.

there are some dogdy versions out there but don't confuse them with real technology..

The biggest problem is the electrolyte and making it for a reasonable cost. you can't just use tap water for this to work properly or efficiently.

also producing the HHO at rate fast enough for high speed use is a problem, and the reason it's not in F1 cars.

but we have been also looking at nano filtration for oxygen enrichment.

This is a really fine filter that stops nitrogen molecules passing through but allows oxygen through. 1% increase in oxygen level gives a significant improvement in combustion.

Unfortunately there will always be scam merchants working off the back of new technology, look at the way solar panels are becomming the double glazing with rogue sellers cashing in.

Geoff


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

GBrapido said:


> . . . it works by modification of the combustion process. it does work.
> 
> remember air is 76% nitrogen which does not support combustion.
> Geoff


Interesting post Geoff.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are saying is that it *can *work under certain fairly special circumstances - which are impossible to create or sustain by using "jam jar technology" under the bonnet.

If the nano-filtration could be made to work you would be almost literally "cooking on gas" - as they say!! I should think it would need a surface area the size of a small bungalow to allow sufficient gases to pass though quickly enough, and more energy would be wasted in forcing (or helping) the gases through such a mind-bogglingly fine filter!!

Interesting . . . nay, fascinating when we get a bit of real science thrown in.


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

Well done Jeff,

Nice to have some support on this subject, and really great to know you were an F1 engine designer. That's one in the eye for Hilldweller. :lol: I don't have to know HOW it works, just that it works. It has also made my engine quieter and run with more response. It is also said to decrease emissions, though I will find out shortly when it goes for its MoT. If combustion is improved, I can't see how emissions could possibly be increased. surely they have to be decreased! But that's just my female logic kicking in. Not wanting to give away any secrets here, the electrolyte is very simple to make. It seems the biggest problem for people to overcome is FAITH. 

Of course I could be having this conversation with Hilldweller for the rest of my life. Perhaps if he would like to meet up with us on a beach somewhere in Portugal this winter, we would happy to continue the conversation, so that he can save face and stop showing his ignorance for all to see on this forum! ...second thoughts Hilldweller, Rock on. :lol: 

As for the previous reply from Bognorbike about my using capitals for the name God, I also use capitals for the 'name' Mohammed, the Dalai Lama, Jesus and the Devil. I thought that was necessary in the English language? ...Oh yes, and the capital for the word He, is merely for emphasis. I obviously can't please all the people all the time. ..still, I guess it shows you are concentrating and at least thinking, even if it is at a tangent.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Zebedee said:


> GBrapido said:
> 
> 
> > . . . it works by modification of the combustion process. it does work.
> ...


I agree but a ringing endorsement for what has been posted earlier it is not. I think nanofiltration just about impossible given the relative sizes of the molecules and oxygen's affinity to join on to anything in a chemical reaction (also an unlikely path as getting oxygen by cooling air to a liquid and then fractionating could be done small scale).


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

sallytrafic said:


> I agree but a ringing endorsement for what has been posted earlier it is not. I think nanofiltration just about impossible given the relative sizes of the molecules and oxygen's affinity to join on to anything in a chemical reaction (also an unlikely path as getting oxygen by cooling air to a liquid and then fractionating could be done small scale).


I'm with you there Frank, hence my mention of a small bungalow.

If only a small increase in the concentration of oxygen is required, a cylinder of the stuff from BO would seem a far more practical solution.

Whether it would add any realistic benefit either to the individual or to the environment at large is a much more vexed question.

As you say, "a ringing endorsement it most certainly is not". I'd be looking at the Hawthorne Effect if my fuel economy suddenly improved under similar circumstances.


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

Just another add on to help explain.

There is enough calorific value in a lolly stick to boil a cup of water when burnt.

But you try it and i bet you won't boil the water.

Its all about optimising combustion which is a chemical process to convert calorific value, or potential energy into usable energy at the rate required from the volatile organic compounds.

catalytic combustion is the new trend in gas appliances which is a chemical combustion that has no flame. Flames are inefficent for energy conversion.

and always remember due to Adiabatic drift all energy will eventually end up as thermal.

Geoff


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi one of the sites that Zeb listed pointed out that you may get increased MPG because the mixture has been leaned by the ECU, due to a false reading from the Oxygen senser, caused by the HHO's effect on exhaust gases.

This is almost certain to cause long term damage to the engine, you may save £500 on fuel but if it cost's £1000 to repair the engine whats the point.

Olley


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

Actually, my HHO cell technology is rediculously simple. I look under the bonnet of my car and see two coffee jars containing the electrolyte plates submursed in electrolyte, some electric wire and some piping to carry the HHO gases to the engine. ..and that's it.

IT WORKS. What else can I say? 

If any of you had the faith to try it out, you would agree with me, and you would save some money in the process. 

Why over the years of car manufacturing has technology moved forward for everything around the engine, aerodynamics, comfort, materials, etc, but little has been done to improve the average vehicle's mpg? The average family car still does little more than 30mpg. WHY? The technology is there, but has been suppressed by the power of the oil companies of course. Yes electric cars have been designed, but even they still have to have their power created from somewhere, beit nuclear or normal electric power, both of which create emissions. They are not as portrayed, emission free. That is just an illusion.

Bognorbike, have you ever thought of going into politics? Politicians are very good at steering people away from the real issue in question making them focus on anything other than the truth.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

bluepirate said:


> The average family car still does little more than 30mpg. WHY?
> Mrs Bluepirate


No wrong the average family car *now* does nearer to 60 to the gallon

My motorhome does nearly 40


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

> I think nanofiltration just about impossible given the relative sizes of the molecules and oxygen's affinity to join on to anything in a chemical reaction (also an unlikely path as getting oxygen by cooling air to a liquid and then fractionating could be done small scale).


Sorry to disappoint but it does work and is working.

Caterpillar have a large marine diesel running in the US with a system of nano filtration working.

i have run a system on a test bed and it works. ( trying to get around the inlet restrictor regulations in the world rally championship )

yes you do have to have an area the size of a bungalow, thats the point of nano technology, huge surface area in a small space.

Molecule sizes are 2:1 for oxygen and nitrogen.

You don't completey seperate the 2 what you do is remove some of the nitrogen from the inflow, thus incraesing the relative percent of oxygen.

Then re-inject the nitrogen to reduce the Nox production downstream.

Can can also be done electrostatically, but uses high voltage.

As for leaning off the engine, by fooling the o2 sensor.

the o2 sensor is post combustion and ensures lambda 1 which is stoichiometric combustion and is correct.

explain to me how it can fool the sensor post combustion causing a leaning off.

Geoff


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Yes Geoff but this thread is primarily about HHO do you endorse that?


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Hi Geoff haven't been in the trade for 20 years so forgive me if my info is incorrect, but I understand that the O2 sensor detects oxygen levels in the exhaust system, too much and it enriches the mixture, to little and it leans it. 

Perhaps if this is incorrect you could explain, as I am always willing to learn, but keep it simple, :lol: never came across words like "stoichiometric combustion" only "smokes a bit donit?"

Olley


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

Olley,

All due respects, but i don't have an oxygen sensor, neither do I have an mpg computer on board. 

I just have a straight forward diesel engine a 1.9 turbo Peugeot. I always keep a measure of my mpg anyway, so knew down to the last drop what it did. This was measured by filling the tank to capacity, zeroing the trip miles, then repeating the process after 100 or however many miles. (not important) After the HHO cell was fitted, I continued with this method, thus discovering the increase of 29.9% mpg. 

Yes, you are right, those with more modern engines with CATs and other gubbins need to read up on the subject before fitting the device, as they may need to fit other electronic devices, but that done, the HHO cell STILL WORKS and increases mpg. On straight forward engines without electronics, fitting the device is simple. 

But don't take my word for it, look it up on the internet, and fit the device on an old banger first if you are that sceptical. All the information is there, you just have to search for it and sift out the rubbish.

I find it fasinating that those who say it works, do actually use it or else know what they are talking about, and those that say it doesn't, haven't used it and don't know what they are talking about! 8O In reality, what does that tell you?

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

> Yes Geoff but this thread is primarily about HHO do you endorse that?


Sorry i was only correcting your post.

as for HHO. well that term alone is contentious..

it depends on what the system is actually doing.

is it the adding of hydrogen, which is a fuel. and modifies the combustion of hydrocarbons.

or is it the adding of the oxygen which modifies the combustion.

Yes i whole heartedly support research in these areas, and testing on vehicles is valuable research and development.

it needs to be tested scientifically.

i do not support some of the systems i have seen on the market and they are clearly scams.

for example, burn water with chlorine in it and get dioxin poison out of the tailpipe.

This i do not support.

Lean burn diesels are coming with reduced particulates as a result.

i can only base my support on the things i have seen, and i have seen systems that work and are a real benefit to the engine.

i will not comment on individual systems only the technology involved in them.

iF blueppirate says it works then she has my support, and i would like to get my hands on it to do some tests.

i do not dismiss the unknown untill it is known.

Geoff


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

Sallytrafic,

Yes a _few _ expensive family cars do near 60mpg, but most don't. Just like most motorhomes do little more than 20 to 25mpg in their normal overloaded state. That's what most motorhomers tell us, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. .......do I? Perhaps they are lying to us. I would expect most motorhomers who drive south for the cold months to know exactly how much fuel they use for how many miles. Of the people we know, they are all meticulous at logging this information.

Our big beast with its 5.9 diesel engine does on average 17mpg, so of course we are wanting to increase that, but then we do have the capacity to carry 7.5t. We have a couple of friends with RVs and they do even less mpg than us! they tell us, 'Oh you are lucky to do 17mpg.'

You are fortunate to get nearly 40mpg, but with an HHO cell you could greatly improve on that.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

You are 100% correct in that all it does is control the air fuel ratio to give the correct stoichiometric ratio for combustion.

The only problem comes with a system fitted with a cat and o2 sensor is if you inject the HHO downstream of the mass flow meter, which they do, then it of course is not taken into account in the vehicle brain.

So lambda 1 is not achieved. But this will be detected by the sensor and richen up the fuel to compensate, as the sensor will be saying there is too much air in the mix.

Of course the damage could be done by now.

and another problem with these systems is that the rate of HHO production can vary, depending on other systems current draw etc. this will mean a varying of the mix and instability.

Leaning off a diesel leads to higher knock levels so should be evident.

it is also easy to a scope on an o2 sensor with the system on and off to see what is happening.

The problem is this combustion chemistry is very complex and way above my head. so we are all in the dark as to what is actually happening in the chamber.

only time will tell how it develops.

Geoff


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

Well done Geoff,

Pity my husband is at work right now, as he is a mechanic and a very good one. He will have to read your posts later today. 

Reading the information; adding Brown's Gas (or Rhodes Gas) named after Professor Yull Brown and William H Rhodes respectively, the product of the electrolysis the HHO gas or two molecules of hydrogen together and one of oxygen, increases the octane rating of any fuel so I guess it does both, modifies the combustion of hydrocarbons and modifies the combustion. Apparently it is a famous WWII system that cooled down airplane engines, saved fuel and saved maintenance. I read that the first B52s needed water injection just to get off the ground. 

Even I used to notice how much quieter and smoother my old T reg Polski Fiat 20 years ago would run in fog. They say that WWII pilots who flew their aircraft close to the surface of the water noticed a dramatic increase in the power and performance of their engines. For reasons that remain obscure, this technology has never reached the public.  I think water injection has been tried in engines since, but hasn't been too successful. But then water mist and HHO gas are not the same are they? 

Jeoff, you don't live far from us. Come and see us if you like, but as my husband is a farmer and it is now harvest, he won't be able to spend time with you until after harvest. Only nature can dictate when that will be.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## daichi (May 9, 2005)

One more point, where do the insurance companies stand on these modified engines if it all goes wrong and you are left with a dead motorhome?


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

This discussion is facinating. It would be more facinating if I knew what the big words meant, but that ignorance just makes it more interesting.

I have no real firm opinion either way, but from experience, ( and its limited I admit) there have been more " I can save you money if you fit this" schemes than I can count. The most obvious was the bag of metal stuffed into a fuel tank to reduce pinking. Never worked, wouldnt work, but loads of them got sold.

On the subject matter of this thread, I'd like to see two identical ( so far as production tolerances allow) engines, dyno tested by independant experts ( in dyno testing that is) and the controls exactly duplicated for each engine. Which I s'pose would mean by computer controls, or similar.

With the tests as dupicated, one with the product and one without, then this would be best comparison, and would take away the human element. I do not doubt the honesty and belief of either the " fors" or " againsts" in this discussion, but I know that I can get anywhere between 25 and 65 mpg from my Picasso diesel and I would like to see that ability to inadveratntly prejudice the experiment taken out the way. Then, with this tet repeated a few times, I'd be in a better position to decide whether the system works or not.

As I say, I dont know one way or another, but I'd bet if this system did work, its already been developed and is sitting somewhere in the deep dark vaults of an oil company somewhere. Bit like the alledged engine developed which would give 100 bhp per litre and 100 mpg.


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

sallytrafic said:


> bluepirate said:
> 
> 
> > The average family car still does little more than 30mpg. WHY?
> ...


The only real way to get more MPH is to do what Sallytrafic has done. Like Frank I have just returned from a 2500 mile trip around Europ maintaining 130kph where permitted and still returned 40+ MPG for the entire trip. That average was calculated using both the trip comp and confirmed with fuel used. All my tins of beans were stowed safely away in the lower locker.


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

Hi Buttons.

The question is, how do you know ?

basically because you do. and you've used the same method of evaluation as the bluepirates.

So what makes your figures accurate, and theirs not.

And how do you know that is the optimum speed for minimum fuel consumption, and how fast did you accelerate to get there.

Sorry for being a pedantic git but i hate it when people get slagged off for doing something and sharing the info, and then when someone else does it, its ok.

Fact is with experience in your own van you know how to drive it best for economy, but its no more scientific than a finger in the air.

with electronic throttle algorithms we can make you drive at the optimum fuel burn all the time if required, but you wouldn't like it.

i can list about a dozen aero tweeks that will make a huge improvement to MPG, mines been in a wind tunnel and is modelled in CFD.



Geoff 
(in a bad mood with wisdom tooth trouble and engine control software to write )


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Hawthorne Effect???

Nobody interested???

Betcha that has an influence!


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

I don't care about the sceptics. If you don't believe what I say, then that's your problem, not mine.

IT WORKS FOR ME, AND THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH. So I shall continue to use it. Anyone (with an open mind) who is ready to see proof, can see my mileage and fuel records.

Will be around Portugal (Algarve) for the winter, so come and say hello. At least we are easy to spot! 

I could continue having this conversation for the rest of my life, and I don't care about converting anyone. I just thought we are all motorhomers and should share such exciting and important information such as this. Perhaps I should have kept it to myself. But then that sums you all up! If you all (Jeoff and Chrisgreen excepted) want to continue poo-hooing it without trying it, then fine. But as a logical individual I would not be swayed against anything from those who have never done it or show their ignorance in obviously knowing nothing about it. I would logically poo-hoo those who had never done it, not the ones who have! If I had taken notice of everyone before we drove to India, then we would never have left the UK. I am so glad we did. You are all locked in a mental prison, so why don't you set yor minds free and experience new things. (no I'm not a New Ager)

We can all resist that which we know nothing about, that's easy, but most of you can't seem to accept that someone else has hold of more information than you. For some reason you can't handle it. 

So as my husband says, CARRY ON PAYING YOUR TAXES!

Goodbye

Mrs Bluepirate 

P.S Thanks for your support Geoff. Hope your wisdom tooth gets better.


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

Hawthorne effect. interesting concept.

"The Hawthorne effect - an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important"

i suspect its been hijacked and used for many scenarios.

I don't think you've made the bluepirates feel important.

But i agree they've certainly been singled out.

Geoff


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

GBrapido said:


> Hawthorne effect. interesting concept.
> 
> "The Hawthorne effect - an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important"
> 
> ...


and heres me thinking it was about bushes. :roll:


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

GBrapido said:


> Hawthorne effect. interesting concept.
> 
> "The Hawthorne effect - an increase in worker productivity produced by the psychological stimulus of being singled out and made to feel important"
> 
> ...


Yes, it has been hijacked Geoff. That's one of several derivations from the original "Effect".

When I studied it (too long ago to contemplate   ) it was an effect attributed to a novel and/or unusual situation.

If workers were asked to change the way they did things it quite often resulted in an almost immediate improvement (which incidentally, usually didn't last very long). This was partly because they were under scrutiny, and also because they were almost obliged to pay more particular attention to what they were doing.

In the context of this thread, I'm suggesting that if one fits a device to the vehicle which is thought to improve fuel economy, then it probably will do so. This is because the driver is constantly aware of its presence and purpose, and consciously or otherwise is likely to drive a little more gently and conservatively.

The Wiki definition ::here:: is pretty close to the one I was working with.

Increased attention, either by being watched or by watching ones own performance often results in a temporary enhancement.

Interesting!!

_(Edited slightly for clarity)_


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

bluepirate said:


> That's one in the eye for Hilldweller. Mrs Bluepirate


Isn't it just.

I owe you an apology, I thought your initial post was a wind up.

I'll keep watching the technology and ease up on the **** taking.

If ever there was a "right" time for something like this then this is it.

No, I'm not going to get working on one, I'm too much of a financial coward to risk £3K if it all goes pear shaped 10,000 miles on ( which is nothing in the lifespan of a diesel ).

If it is as good as it seems, now with the internet stopping it being buried for financial gain then it won't be long before it's in use commercially.


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

GBrapido said:


> i have a close relationship with a company developing this technology for the uk mod.Geoff


I was intending to discuss Computational Fluid Dynamics with you GBrapido but then I read this. I think that my logic would fall on fallow ground. 
Buttons


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*For Hilldweller*

Hilldweller,

Firstly, thank you for your apology, and for having the guts to place it for all to see.

Of course I can understand folk getting worried about trying a device on their £50,000+ investment bristling with electronics and black boxes, and fair play to them, but we, as you can see don't have such a complicated motorhome. My husband built ours with his own hands and I am extremely proud of him for having the skills and guts to do so. (skills most of you don't have) For example, how many of you could have changed a fuel pump (on a big commercial truck) in the middle of nowhere for nothing? My husband did this on Boca do Rio beach last winter, and the replaced fuel pump is still working perfectly.

We prefer older base vehicles for ease of fixing problems, given our type of travels and the countries in which we drive. We are obviously far more adventurous than most of you, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but we are. We also prefer older (proper commercial) vehicles due to their longivity. They were built to work and last with few problems. Our big 5.9 diesel will easily outlive almost all factory built van conversions/modifications, and our truck fully loaded at 6.25t is well within its capability of 7.5t, so is hardly working. Most factory built motorhomes have a very miniscule payload (on average half ton) and most are overloaded before they are even half packed, so making their engine constantly work hard.

I wouldn't expect any of you with an expensive factory built motorhome to simply fit an HHO cell, without first doing some homework, if only to sastisfy yourselves that all will be OK. That WOULD be stupid. But equally it is very ignorant to knock that which you know nothing about. All the information is on the internet for all to see. Just open your mind and read it. Believe those who have done it, not those who haven't.

I would NEVER waste my valuable time to give anyone any bad information and would only use a site such as this to try and help other motorhomers. After all that's what it's for, isn't it? (pity some of you can't be helped) 

It's been quite an eye-opener posting info on the HHO cell, to see how so many of you act like sheep. We have many energy saving ideas, and our truck is fully independent for "freecamping" or "wildcamping" (there's another hot subject) whatever you want to call it. Any of you are more than welcome to come and see what we have and how we have done it. Contrary to what you might believe, we are very friendly. Tea is always being made and I am very well known for my home baked bread, cakes and pizzas! I am also a dog bevhaviourist/trainer so if any of you have any dog problems, come and see me.

But all due respect to you Hilldweller for sticking your neck on the line and backing down. Perhaps now we can move on.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

*Re: For Hilldweller*



bluepirate said:


> Tea is always being made and I am very well known for my home baked bread, cakes and pizzas! I am also a dog bevhaviourist/trainer so if any of you have any dog problems, come and see me.
> Mrs Bluepirate


Hi Mrs BP

Stuff the HHO (which I'm still unconvinced about *in the way you describe it*. "Jam jar science" is OK for a macro demonstration, but a couple of coffee jars under the bonnet is too much for me.) 8O 8O :roll:

However, as I said - stuff the HHO. Anyone who likes dogs must be a nice person, and the mention of tea and cakes has got me planning the route to Kettering.   

But seriously though, thanks also to you for your last post, and for not getting stroppy and unpleasant like some members have in the recent past when others disagree with their strongly held beliefs.

It's a fascinating topic and I've enjoyed reading and contributing . . . . far more so because there was precious little for the Mods team to do!!


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*To Zebedee*

Well, thanks for the thanks!

What can I say? I have two _coffee _jars under my bonnet, and they work!

I have no need to get stroppy or unpleasant about anything. I am the one currently getting 29.9% improved fuel economy, and you lot aren't! So why should I get upset about that? It's you lot that should be getting upset, and you obviously are! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's very funny!

Yes I like dogs, but not always the people that come with them. I get sick of owners letting their dogs relieve themselves around where we are parked. I realise that it's not intentional towards us, but none the less, it is often done around us and where we would be sitting out or walking. Of course they never let their dogs do so around their own vans! (another hot topic) I think it is very disrespectful to let your dog pee up another's motorhome. ...maybe I'm old fashioned. It is also very easy to teach your dog to do it where you allow!

I know, I know, there are going to be some of you out there who say, 'we don't let our dog do that.' But the fact is, most of you DO.

Regards

Bye for now.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

*Re: For Hilldweller*



bluepirate said:


> Hilldweller,But all due respect to you Hilldweller for sticking your neck on the line and backing down. Perhaps now we can move on.
> Mrs Bluepirate


I wouldn't say that Hilldweller was backing down, he is just making a statement that he thought this post was a wind up, but now he can see that you are true believers in your own statements. Let's not get carried away with him now being a convert. If you think that this is working for you, that is great. 
Now apart from a couple of allies with what could be construed as having vested interest in such a product, I am afraid that you are still on your own. I wonder what the Dragons Den team would make of this, I would suggest that you might be a bit short of takers. All high tech sales teams have a front man that will attempt to talk down to you and baffle you with long meaningless words and processes that really don't prove anything. 
My logic says that the world motor manufacturing trade is one of the most competitive, they spend a fortune on R&D they use all of the processes that have been mentioned in producing an engine that will be more efficient than the competition. They pay good graduates to come up with new innervations. They have manufacturing units that can be updated overnight. Another ten mpg would do wonders for their product.
Strange how they have not stumbled across this wonderful technology isn't it.


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

*Re: For Hilldweller*



bluepirate said:


> (skills most of you don't have) For example, how many of you could have changed a fuel pump (on a big commercial truck) in the middle of nowhere for nothing? My husband did this on Boca do Rio beach last winter, and the replaced fuel pump is still working perfectly.
> 
> We prefer older base vehicles for ease of fixing problems, given our type of travels and the countries in which we drive. We are obviously far more adventurous than most of you, and I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but we are. We also prefer older (proper commercial) vehicles due to their longivity. They were built to work and last with few problems. Our big 5.9 diesel will easily outlive almost all factory built van conversions/modifications, and our truck fully loaded at 6.25t is well within its capability of 7.5t, so is hardly working. Most factory built motorhomes have a very miniscule payload (on average half ton) and most are overloaded before they are even half packed, so making their engine constantly work hard.
> 
> ...


Hi BP that's a bit of an erroneous assumption,many people on here do have the ability to build their own, its the time needed. As for changing a fuel pump on an old diesel, I suspect most on here could manage that if they had to.

Not saying your husband isn't clever, but don't think the rest of us are stupid.

The science says HHO doesn't work, you say it does, I am happy with my belief and you are happy with yours. 

As for conspiracy theories, this idea has been around you say since the twenties, and no car manufacturer anywhere in the world has taken it up! If you went on Dragons Den with this idea they would fight each other for the opportunity to invest, or would they? Why has no other investor ever bothered with it, if it worked they would make billions, especially now.

Many fuel saving devices have appeared on the marketplace, and then disappeared when it was realised they didn't work, and I believe this is just another one.

But it would be a boring old world if we all thought the same. 

Olley


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

Verifiable up to 30% increase in fuel economy

Just wear a thin soled pair of these


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

sallytrafic said:


> Verifiable up to 30% increase in fuel economy
> 
> Just wear a thin soled pair of these


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

> I was intending to discuss Computational Fluid Dynamics with you GBrapido but then I read this. I think that my logic would fall on fallow ground.
> Buttons


Hi Buttons, i assume that you think i must be biased in some way..

But i'm afraid you're wrong.

i carry out occasional, independant, un-biased, scientific tests for a very large company that do many things other than this technology, which is a very small part of what they do with engines.

Nothing they are working on is available for sale, and won't be to the public.

They are a very large OEM working on this area of hydrogen production and other advanced technology, which i cannot divulge here.

as i said before, i base my statements on what i have seen and that alone.

Happy to discuss CFD, don't use it a lot, just another tool in the job really.
and obviously a bit fallow.

olly says.



> The science says HHO doesn't work


which science is this, show me. (genuinely interested)

Geoff


----------



## Regal (Sep 25, 2007)

Hi Olley

I am sorry but I have to disagree with you as regards the fitting of a diesel fuel pump, if you have ever had to time up a pump you may realize that not to many members would be capable. All credit to BP's husband.

As regards fuel saving devices I am with you as I have seen quite a few on the market that have never taken off. 

In fact a few years ago we were offered a franchise to sell and fit carbon filters that were supposed to give a better MPG but as you say they seem to come then go.

If they worked I think that even Debora from the Dragons Den would put her money into the venture!!!!!!

As you say we all have our own opinions and that should be respected it's just that some people are wrong. :wink: 

Steve


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

Hi Buttons. just realised you also think i have a vested interest.

you are so far from the truth you could be using my sat nav system.

i am a bit offended that you think that, after i have continually stated that i am independant in all this and base may statements on what i have seen and tested.

So explain to me what is my vested interest.

Just seems to be a good tactic by you to try and discredit honest input to support your own views.

frankly i don't give a flying feck what you all think of HHO and anything else out there, i merely tried to put some fact into the discussion rather than unsubstantiated claims that it does not work.

As for why do manufactureres not use the technology.

you obviously haven't worked for them as i have or you would know.

MPG is not a prime driver in engine design. It is regulations and EU4 and OBD is prime.

Next comes cost.

MPG is starting to become more important but an engine design cycle is about 7 years.

Do you know how long a calibration program for an engine takes.

minimum 1 year and costs over 2 million quid.

and be assurred the OEM's are looking this emerging technology as i have said i have done independant un-biased testing for one of them.

Geoff


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

e reason investors such as dragons den won't get involved is because it is way outside their comfort zone.

they will only invest in something they understand.

This is a very complex area of science that is tarnished with lots of scam products that have gone before and are being sold in this field.

i have clearly stated there are scam products in this field and i do not support them.

i support the fundamental technology being developed in this area based on known facts and testing.

as for other investors, a company called ITM power floated on the uk aim with this technology and raised 25 million quid as a result from investors.

thats a lot of fools if you are correct buttons.

Geoff


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

> GPrapido wrote. Wasn't sure whether to post this or not due to it being my business, mods remove if in breach of any rules please.
> 
> we are developing a small domestic micro combined heat and power system for domestic use. It will generate 6Kw of electricity providing hot water for heating at the same time.
> 
> This not a renewable solution but it will run on Hydrogen which can be produced from a renewable source and transported to the user to be really green. But it currently runs on gas / lpg and biofuels.


Sorry GPrapido if I misjudged you, silly old me thought that there could have been a link with one of your earlier posts. Sorry about that.........


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

no Probs Buttons, i see where you're coming from now.

totally un-related and just another job for me.

That product of ours will run on many fuels including Hydrogen.

But not using electrolisis hydrogen generation as on-board fumigation.
and certainly won't use any gadgets, just a simple efficient system running on gas for at least 2 years anyway.

and is backed by investors such as dragons den people to the tune of 2.5 million already.

GAD approval wouldn't allow it.

it just happens to be an area i work in a lot these days.

i have to be independant in all i do as a consultant, or i wouldn't get work.

Geoff


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

sally traffic wrote



> Verifiable up to 30% increase in fuel economy
> 
> Just wear a thin soled pair of these


Yes Frank buts its HHO we're discussing here


----------



## buttons (Dec 19, 2005)

> ITM power floated on the uk aim with this technology and raised 25 million quid as a result from investors.


Just had a poke around on Google, it would appear that ITM can offer a system that will generate overnight enough Hydrogen for 25 miles of motoring. Didn't state the cost of the kit though. Not much change from 20k at a guess. ITM could find it a bit difficult to raise that 25 million on these results.


----------



## olley (May 1, 2005)

Regal said:


> Hi Olley I am sorry but I have to disagree with you as regards the fitting of a diesel fuel pump, if you have ever had to time up a pump you may realize that not to many members would be capable. All credit to BP's husband.
> 
> Steve


Hi Steve the old Lucas DPA and some of the Simms type had keyed quills which can only go in one way, as for the geared type it was just a question of matching the dots. 

The hardest part was bleeding the blasted DPA's :evil:

Olley


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

agreed, look at the share price history.

but they raised the 25 million already on floatation.


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

Olley,

Yes you are right, some of you do have the ability to make your own motorhome, but most don't. That's a fact.

My husband is clever, of that there is no doubt, but I wasn't concluding that the rest of you were stupid. You can do that by yourselves!

As for changing the fuel pump on an old diesel, you know and I know that _most _motorhomers wouldn't know where to start. That of course doesn't make them stupid. It just means that they don't know enough about mechanics to carry out the proceedure. Everybody is good at something.

If you wish to not believe in what we are doing, that's fine. You, as I, are free to believe as we wish. I have no desire to make lots of money out of the product, only to share it.

Perhaps now with the internet in everyone's home this product will now get out in the open and into the public domain. You have to remember that with government we don't see all that goes on behind closed doors! Remember that. They only tell you what they want you to know. They have a very strong vested interest in not allowing products such as these into the public domain. Whilst they have us struggling with the price of fuel (which filters down to everything else we do), they have us under control. So if you think that the government is great and tells us everything and only wants the best for us, that's fine too! :roll:

As for Sallytrafic; I think your comments to be a little childish, but you obviously find them amusing. :roll: ...what does that tell me?

As an after thought; 
If we have a democracy, why are so many of us disatisfied with our lives?

I suppose you are all going to tell me that your lives are wonderful. Now that I won't believe.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

Hi Mrs Bluepirate.

he is out standing in his field :lol: :lol: 

sorry just couldn't resist it.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: For Hilldweller*



olley said:


> The science says HHO doesn't work Olley


Someone said something like "it modifies combustion".

That's what changed my mind. There are many processed that require a catalyst and it may be that this relatively tiny injection of HHO can improve the combustion process.

I'd be surprised if you could bolt it on to a modern closed loop diesel and get results without totally remapping the fuelling.

We'll know soon enough, as I said, the time is right for it.


----------



## rowley (May 14, 2005)

I wonder if the engine might become prone to hydrogen embrittlement or suffer from decarburization of the steel?


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

yes.


coatings being developed along the lines of nikasil to combat.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

I have just come to my senses. 8O

If it says it works on the Internet, it MUST be true!! 8O 8O

Obvious innit?? 

(N.B. Don't want to be accused of favouritism, so have posted this on both threads)


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

i refer the honorable gentleman to the reply i gave some moments ago.


can we merge them,

i can't keep up with 2 threads and work at the same time. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

GBrapido said:


> can we merge them,
> 
> i can't keep up with 2 threads and work at the same time. :lol: :lol:


Unfortunately it's not that easy.

If two threads are merged the posts re-arrange themselves in chronological order, and therefore become impossible to follow up to the point of the merge.

Cheers


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Zebedee said:


> and therefore become impossible to follow Cheers


It's like than anyway when a bunch of non quoted posts arrive.

People do a quick reply not realising that the reply may well not arrive below the post they replied to.

Some free forums have a threaded display format, does this and I've missed it ?


----------



## krull (Jul 22, 2006)

I am not a chemist (Grade E at A- level), but will some please explain the difference to me betwwen HHO and water.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

krull said:


> I am not a chemist (Grade E at A- level), but will some please explain the difference to me betwwen HHO and water.


Aha, I can do this.

HHo is a television company and water is what the uncouth dilute single malt with.

or is HBO that the TV company....anyway, I'm right about water.

As W.C. Fields said once.......Dont drink water. fish F**k in it.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

krull said:


> I am not a chemist (Grade E at A- level), but will some please explain the difference to me betwwen HHO and water.


Water, H2O is a liquid, HHO is a mixture of gasses than can burn to make water.


----------



## 107088 (Sep 18, 2007)

hilldweller said:


> krull said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a chemist (Grade E at A- level), but will some please explain the difference to me betwwen HHO and water.
> ...


Ok clever clogs, if you want to be picky.

still right about the water though :wink: 8O


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

hilldweller said:


> krull said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a chemist (Grade E at A- level), but will some please explain the difference to me betwwen HHO and water.
> ...


I'm not even quite sure about that Brian. :? 

H and O are atoms, and as such are transient substances. They cannot exist under normal circumstances for more than a tiny, tiny amount of time before combining either with another atom of their own kind, or with something else. Ergo, to all intents and purposes HHO cannot exist. :roll:

This might prove interesting. There's no verification, but as far as I can tell this is completely accurate.

_"You can never get back the energy that went into creating the HHO in the first place -- you have to defy all laws of thermodynamics for this to happen.

The same is true of all fuels -- it always, always takes more energy to create the fuel than you can get out of it. The difference is that HHO has to be created, and it is a transient substance, so it never exists for more than a tiny period of time. Things like petroleum, for instance, already exist -- i.e., it's already been created, so the energy that went into creating it has already been spent without having to do it yourself. Biomass fuels are roughly the same story. The plants and/or the microbes involved in the process are the things largely responsible expending this energy and require little energy supply via human intervention, though the process is still significantly more expensive than cracking petroleum."_

Introducing a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen *molecules * into an engine can increase the burning efficiency, and thus the power output, but it's very questionable if you can release more energy from the biofuel than was required to create the oxy/hydrogen mix in the first place. (It also explodes very enthusiastically, given half a chance, so not for the faint hearted! 8O 8O 8O )

And we are talking about those special circumstances again - like specifically designed engines and management systems.

You just can't get out more than you put in. I believe there's still a one million pound prize on offer for anyone who can - it's called the Perpetual Motion Machine!!  

Interesting though innit!


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Zebedee said:


> I'm not even quite sure about that Brian.


Damn you - I was *good* at *proper* A level chemistry a long long time ago.

Yes, O is not stable but binds to O2.

I think hydrogen is stable as a single atom.

So as O is formed on one electrode it must immediately become O2.

The gas is then HHHHO2.

But it does appear to boost the combustion rather more than the miserly 48W mentioned for one cell.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

hilldweller said:


> Zebedee said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not even quite sure about that Brian.
> ...


I meant it when I said I'm not quite sure Brian.

I think I'm right, and I think you are too, but it was all a long, long time ago. 8O


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*For all the sceptics*

You all (bar 2 of you) seem to be jumping from one side of the fence to another. which side are you on?

One side you are saying that it doesn't work, can't work; If this is so, then how can it be an issue for the insurance companies. ...and why are you all worrying about something that doesn't work???????? 8O 8O 
So i have no need to tell an insurance company.

The HHO cell is NOT a modification to the engine. All the engine settings on my car are the same as when it came out of the factory. No holes have been cut in the pipes, and nothing has been tampered with. The HHO cell is merely a fuel saving device that does not need any "settings" or "modifications" on a standard diesel or petrol engine, though fitting is different to those with ECU and oxygen sensors on board. All this info comes with the instructions.

On the other side you are saying it does; ie, the gases produced are very volatile, ...it takes more energy to produce the gases than to use them, and that the gases produced "fool" the oxygen sensors etc. blah, blah, blah ...but if it doesn't work, surely there can't be any gas!!!!!!! 8O 8O 8O 8O

*SO WHICH IS IT? DOES IT WORK OR DOESN'T IT?*

You can't say it works and then it doesn't!!!!!!!

Q; what of the H produced from normal battery charging under the bonnet of your car? that simply vents away! Is that not dangerous?

Q; what of the Law of conservation, where there only is what there is, nothing can be added or taken away and every action has an equal and opposite reation and that energy cannot be created or destroyed? A car for example changes chemical energy (fuel) into kinetic energy, (movement), of which is only 25% efficient. I did A'Level chemistry many years ago, and would need to delve into this to be able to explain more fully. I remember that there isn't only one type of oxygen molecule and there are different isotopes of oxygen.

I still stand by my original findings on MY FITTED AND WORKING HHO CELL, (which none of you have) that it works and gives me 29.9% improved fuel economy, and has made my car run smoother and quieter, and is safe.


----------



## zappy61 (May 1, 2005)

OK read this topic and the other one with great interest. Now less of the politics how do you build one? Someone please tell I have a test vehicle waiting.

Graham


----------



## trigrem (May 1, 2005)

All I know is that if you mix Hydrogen and Oxygen and apply a match there is a helluva bang. Thats why hydrogen powered cars being worked on need safety features to prevent the escape of hydrogen during an accident.


----------



## sallytrafic (Jan 17, 2006)

zappy61 said:


> OK read this topic and the other one with great interest. Now less of the politics how do you build one? Someone please tell I have a test vehicle waiting.
> 
> Graham


So do I, at least I've got the pumpkin and the white mice.


----------



## aultymer (Jun 20, 2006)

Frank - you could be an honourary Scotsman with comments like that :lol:


----------

