Sigh...

Where does the power come from to move the vehicle to run the turbine to power the generator to crack the water to make "HHO"? That would be about like trying to push a string uphill, through the snow, both ways, etc...

Perhaps you should go back and see if there's anything about a free lunch from nothing.

 

I am embarrassed to talk about something I know so little about, thats why I cant go toe to toe on this subject. for the idea i described to even be possible the vehicle would have to be a hybrid, with a fossil fuel primary power source. The HHO generated would only be supplemental, it would only come on line after the vehicle reach the required parameters. If computer control could be tightly integrated, and the HHO generator was field serviceable, and the mileage/power increase could substantiate the investment, Why Not.

I understand there is no such thing as a free lunch, but if we could engineer a fan/turbine that utilized the pre existing wind/momentum energy efficiently, and the resulting parasitic loss could fall below the energy it took to turn the fan...Win/Win.

 

Remember that a vehicle is moving through stationary (for the most part) air, not the other way around. It takes energy to push the vehicle through the air, and if a turbine is tacked onto the vehicle, wind resistance goes up and power requirement to push the vehicle goes up along with it, negating any gain whatsoever from generating electricity from the turbine.

You would have to harness otherwise lost energy such as to use an electric generator for braking, like the regenerative braking system on hybrid vehicles. Not exactly free, but making use of energy that would otherwise be dissipated in the form of heat in the brakes.

 

Yup, I thought that the resistance from the turbine would increase drag. But when I think of the front aerodynamics of my 93 F-150 ( 4x8 sheet of plywood with a cutout in the middle) it seems to me that with a counter weight ( flywheel ), plus aerodynamic exit path out of the turbine, the majority of drag would be at turbine/flywheel start up.(highway output would see the biggest gain) Look anyway, I know I am using to simple an approach and am far out thunk in this thread. This topic fascinates me, and I will keep trying to think deeper.

 

Google "perpetual energy machine" which is what you are proposing. Also, "First" and "Second Law of Thermodynamics".

Now, if you could figure out how to harness the parts of the system that are inefficient, such as the current discarding of "waste" heat, you'd be on to something. Regenerative braking is an example of this idea.

 

I put this DIY system (1 mason jar) in my 95' back in 2008. Even starting putting Xylene, Acetone in the gas tank. Ran tests for about 4-5 months. The longest travel was NYC to Harrisburg, PA and back. In the very beginning I got good results, 20%-30% better in my 351W. Then nothing.

I researched the matter and learned that just installing the Jar is not enough. I started playing with O2 sensor etc. but sold the van. At the time, there was no way to chip the PCM to work with the HHO. This was all explained and disclosed in the books I paid $ 97 for.

Now, 2 years later, I see that some people actually sell these chips (that did not exist in 2008), which re-program the PCM.

Anyone used the Jars with these new chips? I think the chip shop is called Volo.

Just like in 2008, the scientific debates continue on. I have heard both sides, and honestly I am kinda tired of hearing them. I really want to hear from people who actually installed the chip. Whether things worked or the truck blew up -- that's what I want to hear.

And by the way, I just finished reading about automobile history. In the beginning most people thought automobile was a scam. Horse and Buggy ruled the streets. People thought that if self-propulsion worked the automobile needed to be so big so it could carry coal, but streets were too small. People also thought that using flammable gas for propulsion was too dangerous... Sounds familiar?

Oh, and one more: Henry Ford started out as a shade-tree mechanic.

 

SCIENCE is what produced the vehicle you drive, the computer you post from, and the internet that carried the post.

Funny how people who use extremely complex technology based on science suddenly get allergic to the idea that assertions be PROVEN.

There is no "debate". PROOF is proof. Proof, in science, is REPEATABLE under observable, controlled conditions.

No, it doesn't sound familiar. The naysayers were not scientists or engineers, they were the typical moron on the street who is bitterly and determinedly clueless, uneducated, ignorant, and likes being that way. The typical idiot isn't who builds, refines, and maintains technology. Their function is to buy and drool. Perfectly fine, but taking their opinions seriously except to separate them from their money is absurd.

Public opinion is NOT science. Science demands PROOF. Too bad our education system is so damaged that this requires explanation to adults.

People who FAIL to PROVE their ideas deserve to be scorned. Henry Ford used methods common to the time, which did NOT include making untestable assertions that his product worked. He PROVED it worked. He was an innovative inventor who PROVED his designs in iron and steel, not a scammer looking for ignorant morons who emotionally crave outcomes they have no idea how to produce. Ford produced working products, which were so successful they changed the world.

As for Volo, try this:

Let me google that for you

 

I hear you. I have also heard arguments from the other side. My Business degree did not equip me with the technical background to be able to paraphrase and represent these other arguments, so I feel inadequate in debating with you.

However, I don't think anyone here has a problem with me knocking myself out and experimenting with my own vehicle, correct? I can't see this experiment hurting anyone else, no?

Thanks for the Volo link -- although I have visited their site several times in the last few weeks. I am just looking for Ford owners, part of this forum, who have actually gone to this measure.

 

Nobody here will give you any grief about what you do with your own truck. I've watched hundreds of posts here over the years about HHO and not one person has ever proved it to work. With a BSME I can tell you that it just won't work. Thousands of people have tried and all have failed. You just can't get past the laws of physics. Don't you think that if it worked the auto makers would have done it years ago? Think what it would do for the auto industry. If you want to waste your time and money, be my guest.....

 

I got no problem in doing it and telling everyone "it was bs" for me, if that proves to be the case.

 

Bingo.

HHO is and continues to be the biggest automotive scam ever. Testimonials are NEVER scientific proof.

Put any vehicle on a dyno, hook up a scan tool, watch injection pulsewidth, and any person will instantly see how HHO does not work. It's actually an insanely easy test, and one that not a single HHO advocate will ever run. Heck, in the past I have asked HHO advocates to run this test, and they have all refused.

 

Got it. This test you are stating seems pretty easy to do I guess.

I want to do it right and measure it right. I am not looking to "mythbuster" it, but I am curious for myself.

Before any mods: Take real-time data for several things. I think Injector PW/fuel trims, MAF, O2. What else? Mpg obvously. I also want to dyno it.

I want to take these measurements in several scenarios: outside temp, city, highway, what else?

After mods: run and take measurements for comparison. truck needs to be in equal shape for before/after.

 

The dyno eliminates complex variables in the environment and prevents their from skewing potential test results.

It's simple: Baseline dyno run with the "system" installed but switched off. Record data. Repeat dyno run with the "system" engaged and compare the data.


With gas prices averaging $3.00/gallon and forecast to continue increasing, I was wondering how long before someone would bump this topic again. I wasn't disappointed, I see.

 

Yep, pretty simple test. Like it was mentioned, have the system on a toggle switch. Put the vehicle on the rollers and hook it up to diagnostic data. You can watch whatever variables you want, the main one to look at is injection pulsewidth.

Get the vehicle up to speed, and set the cruise control. The fueling should level off nice and even, since there's no wind, no hills... nothing. Monitor the fueling with the system off. Then flip the switch, and turn on HHO. If HHO actually works, the fueling should reduce, while the vehicle maintains the exact same speed. If fueling remains identical, then it means HHO is a scam.

With cruise control set, it removes errors based on your right foot. The vehicle's PCM will automatically compensate fueling to keep the vehicle at the same speed. That's the handy-dandy miracle of modern fuel injection.

And this is for HHO only, not fooler boxes. Fooler boxes will always skew results, even if HHO isn't running at all.

 

Like I stated in an earlier post, I did HHO without the fooler box. Initially (maybe 20-30 miles), not only I was getting 20-30 percent better MPG, I was getting smoother engine. Soon enough, everything went to the way it was pre-HHO, although the single jar HHO generator was hooked up. I actually left it hooked up until I sold the van.

To be fair and state the facts-- Water4Gas books predicted that. At the end of Book 2 Water4Gas listed carmaker and years and what results other people were reporting. Ford's 90's vans (like mine) were listed as "bad" results, i.e. HHO did not do anything positive. This is what I experienced.

At that time (Fall 2008) Water4Gas did not have a device to re-map fuel trims -- fooler box. Now, they do.

I have no interest in testing anything without the fooler box -- I already did that.

I am not sure if it has been reported on this forum yet (I couldn't find any report) of any Ford owner doing both HHO generator and Fooler Box.

Xylene and Acetone and another substance (I don't remember its name): I did that till the end I sold the van -- 3 ounces per 10 gallons. That gave me about 10 percent mpg increase. I starting doing 14-15 mpg on my 351W rather than 13 mpg before.

Hey, I don't sell nothing. If anything I am disappointed with Water4Gas Customer Service that it took them 4 days to send me the 2 books, after my other laptop died. I got updated books (PDFs) now on this laptop I am typing.