# HHO could increase our mpg by 30%?



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

an interesting article on brown gas(HHO)

Brown's Gas got the name from Yull Brown, a gifted Bulgarian professor and inventor living in Australia. He was one of the first to note the extraordinary properties of HHO, and to disassociate it cheaply from water. He was also one of the first to use it to power an automobile's internal combustion engine, and to also market it as a welding gas (and one of the first to experience the aura of suppression surrounding this alternative energy). Professor Brown discovered that using relatively small amounts of carefully tuned pulsed electricity across submersed plate electrodes acting as Capacitors can break the atomic bonds of water into HHO thousands of times more efficiently than the old methods of "brute force" high-Amperage systems. This does not break any existing scientific principles: When the "capacitance" of the electrodes are exceeded, there is a large release of energy similar to an over-voltaged electroytic "cap" in a circuit exploding much like a firecracker. And Dr. Brown also found that HHO has several unique properties known in no other energy source. HHO does not have a set burning temperature: It reacts to the substance it is contact with when being burned. It can burn cool enough in air to run a finger through it quickly (about 230 deg. C) ; yet it can sublimate Tungsten at over 6000 deg. C when the flame touches it. As a burning torch, it burns through steel or brick remarkably fast (much faster than oxyacetylene gas mixtures). Yet when burned, HHO has only one byproduct: Pure water. Brown discovered another unique property: When in a "perfect" mixture of 66.67% H to O, it will implode instead of explode (the result of the gas recombining back into water). This implosion produces a huge amount of vacuum energy (around 4 times the amount of energy derived from burning / exploding HHO and air mixtures). Brown was also one of the first to discover that when mixed with Diesel or gasoline fuels, HHO will increase the burning efficiency of the mixture greatly. H burns very quickly, the fastest flame propagation rate of any element. Refined oil products are large complex molecules that burn relatively slowly. When HHO is added to the fuels and ignited, much more of the hydrocarbons are burned fully… Creating much cleaner exhaust and more power to the engine. The result is increased gas mileage and smoother running, longer lasting motors that waste much less energy. Depending on the engine, mileage increases of 75% are possible (increases of around 30% are more commonplace with home-made units). This, as a mileage "Booster", is the most popular use for HHO systems today. Sold as kits or simply created at home by tinkerers and would-be inventors, HHO boosters are helping their owners cut pollution and save energy and money all over the world. To modify a car to use HHO Boost is usually quite simple (the disassociated gas is introduced through the air filter); and it works well with gasoline, Diesel, or bio-fuels. The older the engine, the simpler it is to modify: Motors without computers and using carburetors are easiest.

http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=tdcpub001

http://uncutvideo.aol.co.uk/videos/efbfc29a1a7629f15b32dd7912ccd579

its not a gimmick it does work. 
put HHO IN GOOGLE and have a look.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Hi Chris

Not having a pop at you here  , but . . . .

Don't anyone get over-excited by this. :roll: :roll: 

Whatever professor Brown claims HHO is, it almost certainly takes more energy to "make" it than would be released when it is used as fuel or a fuel enhancer.

In chemical terms HHO is simply Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Oxygen - or the constituents of "water" if you want an alternative name for it.

Electrolysis of water produces two atoms of hydrogen per atom of oxygen, and they do indeed re-combine very readily to form water. As this happens there is a release of a bit less energy than was used to create the gases in the first place, due to unavoidable losses and inefficiencies in the process.

I've got some if anyone wants it. It has "Evian" on the label, but I prefer to spell it backwards!! :wink: :wink: 

Special discounts for fellow MHF members. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## AberdeenAngus (Jul 26, 2008)

Biggest drawback is the very real risk of creating DiHydro Monoxide instead - which is lethal and kills thousands every year.
Check out the website

http://www.dhmo.org/

:wink:


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Mostly by drowning Angus! :lol: :lol: :lol:

*

*

*

*

Just in case anyone is taken in - even Wiki has heard of the hoax. ::See here:: and ::here::


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

AberdeenAngus said:


> Biggest drawback is the very real risk of creating DiHydro Monoxide instead - which is lethal and kills thousands every year.
> Check out the website
> 
> http://www.dhmo.org/
> ...


i can find no link on the website between hho and dhmo?
can you help with that??
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html


----------



## satis (May 5, 2008)

chrisgreen said:


> an interesting article on brown gas(HHO)
> Hi Chris,  I have also been reading up on Hydrogen fuel cells with great interest,Already japanese car manufacturers are investigating and perfecting the technology for future generation cars,I am going to indeed replicate a fuel cell and try one out on one of my vehicles,Ilooked at the link you provided Water4gas,There are a few other sites with simular information on how to build your own cell and you can also,dare i say it,buy ready made fuel cells on ebay,Will let you know the results when i have built and tested the cell,kind regards Satis
> Brown's Gas got the name from Yull Brown, a gifted Bulgarian professor and inventor living in Australia. He was one of the first to note the extraordinary properties of HHO, and to disassociate it cheaply from water. He was also one of the first to use it to power an automobile's internal combustion engine, and to also market it as a welding gas (and one of the first to experience the aura of suppression surrounding this alternative energy). Professor Brown discovered that using relatively small amounts of carefully tuned pulsed electricity across submersed plate electrodes acting as Capacitors can break the atomic bonds of water into HHO thousands of times more efficiently than the old methods of "brute force" high-Amperage systems. This does not break any existing scientific principles: When the "capacitance" of the electrodes are exceeded, there is a large release of energy similar to an over-voltaged electroytic "cap" in a circuit exploding much like a firecracker. And Dr. Brown also found that HHO has several unique properties known in no other energy source. HHO does not have a set burning temperature: It reacts to the substance it is contact with when being burned. It can burn cool enough in air to run a finger through it quickly (about 230 deg. C) ; yet it can sublimate Tungsten at over 6000 deg. C when the flame touches it. As a burning torch, it burns through steel or brick remarkably fast (much faster than oxyacetylene gas mixtures). Yet when burned, HHO has only one byproduct: Pure water. Brown discovered another unique property: When in a "perfect" mixture of 66.67% H to O, it will implode instead of explode (the result of the gas recombining back into water). This implosion produces a huge amount of vacuum energy (around 4 times the amount of energy derived from burning / exploding HHO and air mixtures). Brown was also one of the first to discover that when mixed with Diesel or gasoline fuels, HHO will increase the burning efficiency of the mixture greatly. H burns very quickly, the fastest flame propagation rate of any element. Refined oil products are large complex molecules that burn relatively slowly. When HHO is added to the fuels and ignited, much more of the hydrocarbons are burned fully… Creating much cleaner exhaust and more power to the engine. The result is increased gas mileage and smoother running, longer lasting motors that waste much less energy. Depending on the engine, mileage increases of 75% are possible (increases of around 30% are more commonplace with home-made units). This, as a mileage "Booster", is the most popular use for HHO systems today. Sold as kits or simply created at home by tinkerers and would-be inventors, HHO boosters are helping their owners cut pollution and save energy and money all over the world. To modify a car to use HHO Boost is usually quite simple (the disassociated gas is introduced through the air filter); and it works well with gasoline, Diesel, or bio-fuels. The older the engine, the simpler it is to modify: Motors without computers and using carburetors are easiest.
> 
> ...


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

Zebedee said:


> Hi Chris
> 
> Not having a pop at you here  , but . . . .
> 
> ...


thousends being used in the usa.

i will try it and report my results on here,nothing ventured nothing gained?


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

Zebedee said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Mostly by drowning Angus! :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> ...


can you just clarify that you post is about angus,s post and not mine?


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Water to do*

Hello there,

mentioned this on the forum a week or so ago and no replies.

Trev.


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

*Re: Water to do*



teemyob said:


> Hello there,
> 
> mentioned this on the forum a week or so ago and no replies.
> 
> Trev.


i looked through your post,s and you did indeed post a link.
but didnt see it so i put a thread up.
what put me onto it was a friend of mine got it fitted to his petrol 4x4 and has had some results with it,so i thought i would look into it.

he has gone from 19 mpg to 26 mpg on a unit that draws 4 amps.


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

for all you unbelievers?
have a look at this guy videos(7) of hho generators.
why would he go to all the trouble of building these if the science does not work.?????????????


----------



## cronkle (May 1, 2005)

chrisgreen said:


> for all you unbelievers?
> have a look at this guy videos(7) of hho generators.
> why would he go to all the trouble of building these if the science does not work.?????????????


Bubbling away, just like my electric kettle. A very involved way of making a coil.

EDIT: I'm not sure who's winding what or who here :wink:


----------



## pneumatician (May 1, 2005)

*Economisers*

Whilst Camping at a C&CC site last week the warden was circulating literature advertising the merits of magnets for increasing fuel ecconomy.
These magnets are strapped around the fuel supply line with tie wraps.
The literature suggests that the system was used in Spitfires and military vehicles etc etc.

Both myself and another aged fellow camper said we had seen the system before but remained sceptical. Many years ago I had magnets in both the petrol tank and motorcycle sump but the idea of this was to collect ferrous foreign bodies, plenty of these in what we now call classic bikes.

Steve


----------



## AberdeenAngus (Jul 26, 2008)

chrisgreen said:


> for all you unbelievers?
> have a look at this guy videos(7) of hho generators.
> why would he go to all the trouble of building these if the science does not work.?????????????


Oh I don't know, how about...
spoof
giggles
cash
con
all of the above

Do you reallly think anyone is taken in by the idea of generating more energy than the energy it takes to generate it.
You are taking over-unity, perpetual motion or more correctly......HOGWASH

Actually, no you are correct. Thius is a wonderful idea which will save the world....meanwhile can I interest you in buying some lunar real estate !


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

Actually, no you are correct. Thius is a wonderful idea which will save the world....meanwhile can I interest you in buying some lunar real estate !


you get me up there and i might be interested.


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

cronkle said:


> chrisgreen said:
> 
> 
> > for all you unbelievers?
> ...


now there is a poster that defo cannot understand the science?

electric kettle????????


----------



## oilslick (Oct 3, 2007)

If you intend to start messing around making this be warned, a 2:1 mix of hydrogen to oxygen is very explosive.

I have seen the remains of car batteries where only an eggcup full of gas has gone off in a cell and there has not been one piece of the battery left bigger than a sugar cube. (most of these accidents occour because people disconect the charger before turning it off, creating a spark, not because batteries are inherrently dangerous)


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

oilslick said:


> If you intend to start messing around making this be warned, a 2:1 mix of hydrogen to oxygen is very explosive.
> 
> I have seen the remains of car batteries where only an eggcup full of gas has gone off in a cell and there has not been one piece of the battery left bigger than a sugar cube. (most of these accidents occour because people disconect the charger before turning it off, creating a spark, not because batteries are inherrently dangerous)


done it myself buddy while welding in my workshop near a battery that was charging,did not explode but the venting gas caught fire.


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

and another link.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Brown's_Gas_(%22HHO%22)_:_Clean,_Cheap,_and_Suppressed_Energy 

i note all the doubters have no links to post?


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

chrisgreen said:


> and another link.
> 
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Brown's_Gas_(%22HHO%22)_:_Clean,_Cheap,_and_Suppressed_Energy
> 
> i note all the doubters have no links to post?


Hi again Chris

Just to refresh your memory.    

Please see ::here:: 

There are plenty more links, but they won't change your opinion any more than your links will change the skeptics. :roll: :roll:

As I said before, I wish you were right . . . . .


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

Zebedee said:


> chrisgreen said:
> 
> 
> > and another link.
> ...


the refresher keeps coming back to this tread?? and no links,only angus's link now we now thats hogwash.


----------



## altair (Mar 25, 2006)

I've looked at some of these videos and there are some very committed (to the technology) people out there.

I strikes me that if this idea works it is not just because you are adding extra fuel to the combustion chamber with the lossy overhead of making it in the first place, but that adding the gas mixture alters the combustion temperature of the normal petrol/diesel fuel mixture thereby increasing the effiency of the combustion process. 

There are two points that this raises, safety of the gas mixture, production of out of spec co2 emissions and the efforts of the engine management computer to counteract any benefits by enriching the normal fuel air mixture: 

There are three points that this raises. 

Safety of the gas mixture, production of out of spec co2 emissions and the efforts of the engine management computer to counteract any benefits by enriching the normal fuel air mixture and invalidation of insurance unless you declare and obtain approval of the modification (unlikely)

There are four points that this raises. 
If you have an old car with a carburetter it is probably worth a test if you are mechanicaly inclined
Tim


----------



## chrisgreen (Jan 13, 2008)

altair said:


> I've looked at some of these videos and there are some very committed (to the technology) people out there.
> 
> I strikes me that if this idea works it is not just because you are adding extra fuel to the combustion chamber with the lossy overhead of making it in the first place, but that adding the gas mixture alters the combustion temperature of the normal petrol/diesel fuel mixture thereby increasing the effiency of the combustion process.
> 
> ...


increasing the efficiency of the combustion process
bingo, a poster who does not dismiss the idea as unworkable.
as you say alot of committed people out there.
i might need committing after trying it,lol.

but i think it worth looking into,as i have seen with my own eyes it working.
as you say on an old 3500cc rangerover with a carb.
i have no motors that have computers on them.that is a different set up.


----------



## cronkle (May 1, 2005)

chrisgreen said:


> cronkle said:
> 
> 
> > chrisgreen said:
> ...


What's difficult about the science of an electric heating element. They make bubbles in water just like in the video.


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*HHO cell*

Hi Chris,

As you know we have been mercilessly metaphorically beaten up over this subject, but we still stand proud and strong, given that the "bullies" doing the beating are just a little clan of whimps. We are not intimidated by any of them, even though they have tried very hard to "prove" (albeit in wet blanket style) that we are wrong or mistaken. If even one of them had tried the HHO cell, then I could be remotely interested in what they had to say, but until then......... :roll:

My husband fitted 2 HHO cells on my 1.9TD Peugeot and they have given me a 29.9% mpg increase. SO IT WORKS. It has also made my car far more responsive at low revvs, and has quitened the engine. I have a musical ear and can easily detect changes of engine tones. ...but of course, if none of you have ever fitted one, you won't realise the difference it makes. All the info is on the internet for all to see, but there are those who can't be bothered (or too scared) to read or try it out. And they seem to hate others knowing anything more then them and so feel they have to discredit them.

In reply to Pneumatician; the magnets you are talking about, we bought the big ones for our truck based motorhome IVECI 79-14 and it didn't improve our fuel economy, but it DID make our engine run smoother and quieter. There was a marked difference. It did work for other vehicles.

Some of you are also talking about the metal pellets that were sold back in the 80s. I put some of them for my then Polski Fiat and it DID give me a 15% mpg improvement and it DID make my engine run smoother and quieter. (it was a noisy engine) They were an alloy of tin, lead, and some other metals and mine were called Carbon-Flo. I have always been a meticulous logger of mpg on all of my vehicles.

As for why it hasn't been snapped up by car manufacturers, well if you understood how government and big businesses worked in co-operation, then you would understand.

I have seen Madstu on uTube with his HHO cell and it works for him also. He is not making any money out of it, simply sharing his experiements with those willing to watch. So what does he have to gain?

Anyway Chrisgreen, good luck

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*For Cronkle*

Funny that you thought you saw a "electric heating element creating bubbles in _water_"

We followed the very comprehensive instructions for making the HHO cell and yes it did produce bubbles, but those bubbles ignited repeatedly with a naked flame, something HOT AIR would COULD not do. In fact in one experiement the explosion blew our (then) plastic HHO cell apart. I have it all documented on video to prove it. The bubbles produced are indeed volatile gases that do aid combustion in the engine. So still tell me I am mistaken or wrong.

I have actually DONE THE EXPERIMENT. YOU HAVEN'T. 8)

So who has the knowledge? I don't think it's you. :wink:

But if people want to continue to believe in you, well more fool them!

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*To Zebedee*

I have been using the HHO cell on my car for a few weeks now, and my battery hasn't gone flat yet! But according to you the running of the HHO cell uses more energy to run than it gives. On your say so then I should be having a flat battery. .............I'm waiting. My car still starts first time every time, and all my electric extras, windows, sunroof, etc, (which I have been using everyday in this heat) are still in fine working order.

Think you're wrong again Zebedee.

Oh dear, you're not doing very well are you? :lol:

You see the difference here is that I am reporting what I _see_, (AS I DO HAVE ONE FITTED AND WORKING ON MY CAR) and you are reporting what you _think_. (YOU HAVEN'T MADE ONE, NEITHER DO YOU HAVE ONE FITTED TO YOUR VEHICLE)

Of course, I'm not implying that you are stupid, just that you simply don't understand what you are talking about. I'm not qualified to say if anyone is stupid, they are more than qualified to do that themselves :lol:

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

*Re: To Zebedee*



bluepirate said:


> But according to you the running of the HHO cell uses more energy to run than it gives. Mrs Bluepirate


You are very good at shouting out loud that others are ignorant and stupid whilst flaunting your own lack of understanding in public.

Your HHO cell could generate enough motor power to drive a supertanker but your unmodified alternator still chugs away at it's normal rate. So depending on how many miles you do the HHO cell could be taking more out of the battery than the alternator puts in.

You take a very simplistic view on this, "As well as building a motorhome from sticky backed plastic and a WW2 go cart, my wonderful heroic husband has made and fitted WonderGadget to my car and I have recorded better fuel economy". You have no idea if your engine or other parts of the car are being damaged, you have no idea if you are breaking the law on emissions, you have no idea if you are putting yourself in danger.

You simple old car can be letting you off lightly.

But as someone else mentioned hydrogen and oxygen can be an explosive mixture, it was a prime fuel for early rockets, I wonder when we'll see the first person blinded when their home made bombs goes off.


----------



## 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??


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

in amongst the pointless insults, Hildweller actually makes some good points.

the stuff can be lethal and i don't advocate anyone who is not totally comfortable with these things experimenting in this area.

Hydrogen can be a safer fuel than petrol in some circumstances, but not in others.

i have seen plastic inlet manifolds explode when hydrogen builds up in un vented crevises during a back fire.

i ran a 2 stroke motorbike on oxygen causing flames to shoot out the intake and blow up the plenum box.

i've seen an LPG conversion that nearly killed someone, (legal case).

just my 2 penneth.

Geoff


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

> I have just come to my senses.
> 
> If it says it works on the Internet, it MUST be true!!
> 
> Obvious innit??


or if it says it doesn't work on the Internet, it MUST be true!!

:lol: :lol:


----------



## daichi (May 9, 2005)

Like I asked on the other HHO post, will your insurer look kindly on a modified engine if it blows up? or if something unrelated to this gizmo gives up the ghost and gives them an excuse to declare your insurance nul and void?


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

GBrapido said:


> > I have just come to my senses.
> >
> > If it says it works on the Internet, it MUST be true!!
> >
> ...


Touche (if that's how to spell it?)   

I think most people are happy to accept that the technology works (I certainly have been for years) but not with a couple of jam jars under the bonnet of an unmodified car. 8O 8O

That's the vital distinction in this whole amusing debacle.  

Cheers


----------



## johng1974 (Jan 17, 2007)

As Dougie once said..

'this is better than the telly this'

:lol:


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

it's the same as any post reg engine mods, chipping, re-map etc etc.

warranty probably void, insurance may take a dim view if not informed.

And again another reason not done by conservative OEM,s things like crash testing have to be done which cost an absolute fortune and could take 10 years to get onto an engine in production, so why should they bother taking the risk.

Engine mapping is a classic example of why don't the OEM's do it syndrome.

Geoff


----------



## altair (Mar 25, 2006)

Just a quick thought about the exploding gas mixture. I believe the problem was solved a few years ago by a ?Mr Davey with his safety lamp that allows a naked flame to be used in a potentially explosive gas mixture. 
Tim


----------



## 114078 (Jul 6, 2008)

*To Zebedee*

I'm not into having a slanging match here, but firstly I'm not saying that anyone is stupid, I don't need to. But what I would like to know, is how can you shout louder than me, when you haven't even tried it or had one fitted to your vehicle?

Yes, I do have a lack of understanding about how the HHO cell actually does work, of that I am under no illusion. I'm not an engineer, or a chemist or have any other training that would help me to understand this. But I don't HAVE to understand HOW it works to know that it works. I can only report the results and what I see. All the tests in America say that the HHO cell effects reduces the wear on pistons and valves, and increases the life of your engine. Why would they tell me that when they haven't made any money out of me? I am willing to try it out.

As for any explosions, the HHO cell has been fitted exactly as described in the book, and I believe it to be safe. My car runs much better than before the cell was fitted. I don't understand why you are so focused on putting me down? I am the only one on this forum to actually have one fitted to my car. Do my findings and results then mean nothing to you? Surely, the cell fitted to my car and working HAS to mean something, doesn't it? Are all those on uTube wrong? They have nothing to gain from from us at all. Perhaps I should have kept it all to myself.

As for the law and emissions, my car passed its MoT with HHO cell fitted and working and easily passed the emissions test. I was told it had very low emissions. So the law says my emissions are OK.

I am happy with my HHO cell and will continue using it.

Mrs Bluepirate


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

independat tests by a government agency have shown that hydrogen and oxygen fumigation in a diesel engine reduces harmfull emmisions.

it is still unclear the whether the reason is the reduced fuel consumed or the actual chemistry as speed of flame front has a direct effect on NOX production.

NOX is produced at the leading edge of a flame front, if the flame front is quick enough as in a lean burn engine than the combustion event is over before significant NOX is produced.

This has to be carefully balanced with the temperature of the flame, a faster flame tends to be hotter, which produces more Nitogen dioxide.

Nox (nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide) is caused by the oxygen on the flame front combining with the nitrogen in the air and the fuel.

EGR is used to cool the flame down a bit thus reducing the amount of NOX produced.

Adding oxygen to the mix reduces the amount of nitrogen and thus reduces the nox produced.

Hydrogen is a nitrogen free fuel wheras diesel is not. so again adding hydrogen reduces the ratio of Nitrogen to oxygen and thus reduces the NOX produced.

now onto particulates.

the higher the combustion temperature the less particulates are form.

Particulates are formed from the non volatile components of diesel in incomplete combustion. In these particulates are various compounds such as sulphur dioxide and other nasties.

Higher injection pressures have reduced the droplet size during injection which has led to better combustion at higher temperatures. Adding some oxygen and hydrogen increases furtehr the burn temperature and will reduce particulates primarily at low load / speed.

Geoff


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Thanks again Geoff.  

More interesting by the minute.   

How much hotter are we talking here?

Hot enough to damage an unmodifed engine, or to influence the EMS unduly so it throws a wobbly? :? 

Cheers


----------



## 110747 (Mar 21, 2008)

> How much hotter are we talking here?


it is impossible to tell to be honest.

there are so many variable factors involved in the combustion.

the leading edge of the flame front that is consuming oxygen will be about 1800 Deg C. But the actual mean temperature will be about 650 to 700 Deg c depending on load, lamda, compression ratio etc etc.

Adding oxygen will create a very unstable flame front depending on the mix.

if the oxygen that is added is not consumed then it actually makes the nox production worse as it increases the oxygen to nitrogen ratio at the high temperature zone thus creating more NOX.

basically the flame has to consume the oxygen before NOX has time to form.

it is a terrible balancing act, as when make conditions better for one emmision you make it worse for another.

So ideally you have a fast low temperature lean of stoichiometry burn.

incedentally all diesel engines run lean of stoich as standard to keep below the smoke limit.

Geoff


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Thanks once more Geoff.

Like a whole lot of apparently simple processes, on a personal level the more you _(as in "one")_ learn the more you realise how pathetically little you understand. :roll: :roll:

In more global terms, was it Hilldweller who said we are a thick as piggy poo?

He's dead right. In spite of all the tremendous advances in science and technology, there's still an awful lot about which the human race knows practically nothing!! :roll: :roll:

Fascinating.


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Zebedee said:


> In more global terms, was it Hilldweller who said we are a thick as piggy poo?


Not global for universe.

I just grin ( or upset someone in print ) when I hear "there is no other life in the universe" "Einstein says we cannot exceed the speed of light so we will never get far enough to meet other beings".

It's just so pathetically narrow minded. We have been "thinking" hard for, what, 10,000 years. 300 years ago we were still using candle light. There are planets out there 1,000,000,000 years older than ours, so what might they be thinking about ? Assuming they are not as thick as us and actually survive that long.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

hilldweller said:


> There are planets out there 1,000,000,000 years older than ours, so what might they be thinking about ? Assuming they are not as thick as us and actually survive that long.


Their pension??

_(Aaarrrgggggghhhhhhh . . . sorry!)_


----------



## 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 on your theories 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? ....there are even dangerous gases produced from standard vehicle exhausts every minute of the day, yet over the years, very little has been done about that. By law it is allowed.

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 smoother, quieter running engine and is safe.

What of Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone? I'll bet everyone argued with him saying it worked and it didn't, and what use is that for an invention! :? Look at us now, with mass global communications in an instant! :?

Theories are made, proved and disproved. Equally, folk are for them and against them. Life goes on and folk lose out and folk gain.

...and please, stop the insults. There is no need for it. It doesn't make you clever.


----------

