DOUGPHYSICS
I do run SVO in my 1987 F250. After adding my version of the hydrogen generator I'm getting better mileage. How much? Let me put it this way, I would fill up payday. That would be the front tank and half of the back when I ONLY ran SVO. I added the Hydrogen generator and now only have to fill the front tank because I didn't have to go to the back tank when the front tank goes empty. You want numbers? Don't have any. I"m not going to go back to running Dino Diesel just so you can get some numbers and say I"m not gaining any mileage. My fuel bill dropped about 25+ percent after using the Hydrogen generator. Instead of telling everybody their wasting their time trying something that doesn't work open your eyes. Oh, that's right, if it can't be proven to YOU that something works I guess it must be smoke and mirrors. Where would we be today if you had been around telling the Wright brothers that they can't fly? I enjoy talking to people that have an open mind and will listen. Yes I've seen "youtube" and the many people there telling how great their HHo generators work. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'm not going to tell them they don't work without seeing them in action. Personally I don't care if they do or don't, that's their business You will do anything to prove your point so I see no reason for anybody to even give you the chance to "prove" that HHO can't be possible. I'm sure I'll get a blast back from you telling me I don't know what I'm talking about but I'll treat you the way I learned years ago. Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear. I see mine working and that's all that matters to me.

 

Well you're story about using less gas is better than nothing. At least someone is getting some positive results.

 

Doug, didn't some one send you a generator to try out?

 

yea thedaddycat did! which i thank him for. What do you know, no difference at all. I have a 4banger(subaru) gas engine so I didn't expect anything. He claimed gasoline engines did improve with HHO but I couldnt follow the logic. As far as diesel goes, the logic may make sense. Use some HHO to burn the rest of the diesel and hope it makes up for the 30% efficiency of the electrolyzer. I did give it to a buddy with a diesel( but i'm in maine and it's a ****ing cold year, so it isn't installed yet.)

The electrolyzer he sent really didn't use much electricity anyway, I couldn't max out my alternator (90 amps), which at 12 volts is just over 1hp. With such a small electrolyzer I wouldn't expect to see any results anyway. 1hp in my 4 bangor (175hp) is much less than 1% , which is hard to see at the pump anyway. So for better or for worse, it would be hard to tell. So lets say I only use 50hp most of the time, it's still only using 2% of my power, which the average guy just won't notice at the pump (this means me). From day to day I could easily be +/- 5% on the throttle and that 2% I just won't notice either way.

Besides the people claiming 25% increase in mpg(which is great!), I would think you would want to use a substantial amount of engine power. This way you will either see a decrease or an increase. But then again, no one here uses big enough electrolyzer's anyway. If you have a 300 hp engine, and want to do a real test, you want a giant electrolyzer.

This is why I keep asking. If you have a diesel, it's probably big, and most of the plans I've seen have been for small electrolyzers. And most of the comments have been no change, since they use the small electrolyzers.

If you keep making the electrolyzers bigger and bigger, you will see a decrease or increase in mpg at some point.

Or maybe an increase at a certain size, and then a decrease once it gets too big.


The other reason I have to rain on your parade, is that the only guy claiming good increases(before dyoungen) was MILEHIGHHYDROGUY, and everyone else seemed to say thay weren't seeing any. And I'd love to smoke that hydro too, but you know, he might just be high.


Either way, dyoungen, if you really are running SVO, I'm soooo jealous. It would only make it sweeter if HHO only worked for SVO too. And if you get bored this spring, please do some mpg tests with and without HHO. After all, the turbo diesel subaru's will be out in a year, and I might have to go SVO.

 

anyone having any luck?

 

hello anyone out there

 

We are still here and there was a recent inquiry about HHO in the forum.

I think everyone gave up on HHO.

I still have parts I bought to make my HHO unit bigger, just no time to work on it.

My best effort so far is about 10 liters per minute, and the cell temps were increasing to fast, so not enough to install yet in my opinion.

 

Thats still better than my concentric pipe setup. I just realized, I have a ~160V lithium battery for my electric car project. Wonder what that would do to my cell. Specs say it can put out 1000 amps for 15 seconds and 200 constant.

Think that would be enough? lol

I ran out of time too. Still wish I could play with this but other matters are more pressing. I have a plate version thats been on the shelf for a while now. Results seemed better, but I doubt it would be enough to feed a 6.9 diesel.

 

good to know youre still out there,same here its kinda on the back burnner for now,hope to pick it up again this fall

 

Been watch these threads in various forums and one thing that I thought was what if you took a bottle of industrial hydrogen and a tig welding flow meter rated for say 0-10 lpm you could carefully test this on your intake to find at which point in the concentration level it made a noticable difference to you power/mpg. Mind I said carefully because too much could be disasterous. In australia they are now putting lpg tanks on diesel vehicles to help with economy and emissions. You guys have probably been doing this for years over there and I know the point is to do it yourself and save money but I think this is the same principle. I doubt I could do anything over here coz if it all went to hell in a handbasket it's a mighty long swim to come and get parts.

 

I'm still around too, it's just way on the back burner for me as well. Time, funds and the wife hounding me about the dumb project (lol) it's just sitting on my bench collecting dust. I'm still intrigued by the idea and would like to play w/ it, just not now. I've also started blending WVO so my fuel costs have gone down to less than $30 a tank (44gal / 550-600miles) so that has been getting a lot of my spare time! Todd

 

i have built 4 smack boosters and i am planning to try ganging them up to see what happens.i'll let y'all know.

 

I built one Smack booster with the wrapped cell and after it gets running a while, I can light it and have a small flame on a home made blow torch head.
I once had it back fire but the flame arrestor kept it small and none of the lines blew.

I fabricated a nice little bracket to mount it between the passenger side battery and the radiator, added an inertia switch to kill it in an accident, powered it off the injection pump and spent a long time setting it up and found no improvement in power or mileage.

It even ran so hard and hot once, I found it started dumping boiling foam into the intake hose.

The theory is sound and I do believe Hydroxy injection is going to be a big part of the future of automotive technology.
It's just that I either need a much bigger or a more efficient generator to see any improvement in my International 7.3 Diesel's power or mileage.

I saw a video of one mounted in a Toyota Prius that was HUGE compared to a Smack and they were only seeing a small gain in mileage. I do believe their gain was smaller as the vehicle it was mounted to is so much more efficient.

I would like to see a side by side comparison of amp's and gas output for the various units.

 

im still toying with tapping into the map hose ,or install a small air pump piped into the gen to help push the hho to intake.
any thought on this

 

Again I am going to say where our MPG/power increase is to come from is the fuel close to the cooler walls of the head and cylinder is not burning completely.

Most documents have that unburnt fuel at around 30% of what goes in the engine.

Where the hydrogen advantage is, the flame speed once ignited should carry the flame to all parts of the combustion chamber instantly, causing more of the fuel injected to burn.

But when you ar injecting 2 liters per minute in an engine consuming 8625 liters of air per minute at 2500 RPM the concentration is .0002318840 when divinding 2 by 8625.
Turn that to percent, .02318840%

Trace amounts are going to make no change.

2 hundredths of a percent is a waste of time.

Kick production up to 20 liters per minute, now you have .2%.
You might start seeing something at lower RPM's, but I think we need to work on higher RPM levels where you have the throttle down more.

200 liter per minute, 2% might actually do something.