Water4gas

-
Longgone

Longgone

John/68 Barracuda & Dart
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
6,896
Reaction score
81
Location
Newport News, Virginia
I saw a news article on our local TV station about a guy that installed one of these HHO units on his Chevy truck and went from 20-40 highway miles. Parts for the HHO unit were just under $100.00. I might give this thing a try, has anybody had any experience with one of these things? See it here: http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm
 
Interesting idea...... For $100 probably worth a try.

Let us know if you decide to give it a shot.
 
It looks like a good idea, and seems to be an easy install.
Nice find longgone. I saved it in my favorites just incase I feel
like I can depend on a good install. This is something that the new green cars need!! If it is every thing they say it is. it sure looks like a good thing.
 
It will be awesome if this is legit, but wouldnt the auto makers have caught onto this already?
I always remember that if sounds to good to be true, then it most likely is. I see this same idea advertised on Craigslist all the time. Someone must be making good money off of the sales of the kit.
 
Aaron said:
I always say if it sounds to good to be true, then is most likely is. I see this same idea advertised on Craigslist all the time. Someone must be making good money off of the sales of the kit.
Click to expand...

That`s the thing here, the kit is something you just buy locally and consists of items like mason jars, wires, etc..
 
Aaron said:
It will be awesome if this is legit, but wouldnt the auto makers have caught onto this already?
Click to expand...
I'd say most of the stuff on the market is crap built for the sole purpose of making a quick buck. The thing that makes my brain hurt is that efficiency hasn't really increased for so many years. I had a 1991 Eagle Talon that got 34-36 MPG all day long. Even better: a buddy in the service had a 1966 3/4-ton Chevy pickup w/ a reasonably healthy 350. With careful parts selection (an HEI and the right Q-Jet) and lots of tuning, I managed to get 24-26 MPG out of it. Now I see television commercials that make a lot of noise about some $28,000 thing that gets an *amazing* 25 MPG. I suspect that the automakers are holding back. Money is being made somewhere through a lack of real progress. It doesn't make sense.

Any real progress is gonna have to be made by some average guy/gal that knows some stuff.
 
This is very interesting, I would probably up grade to a higher amp alternator.
This sure has my attention :read2:
 
Aaron said:
It will be awesome if this is legit, but wouldnt the auto makers have caught onto this already?
I always remember that if sounds to good to be true, then it most likely is. I see this same idea advertised on Craigslist all the time. Someone must be making good money off of the sales of the kit.
Click to expand...

The article that appeared on our local news show actually started a couple weeks ago when the man doing the experiment installed the kit on his Silverado. They checked back in with him today to see if the system was crap or really worked. The result was a resounding yes. Mileage doubled both in town and the highway,the performance even improved. ????? Absolutely, when things sound too good to be true they usually are.
 
OK, I'm trying to get my pea-brain around this. I imagine that hydrogen oxide gas would work like something akin to, but not exactly like, nitrous oxide. Nitrous is an oxidizing agent, if I am correct, but hydrogen is actually a fuel, but the "oxide" might also be an added oxydizine agent benefit.

Now, I know that hydrogen has specific energy content per given volume (I would have to research the BTU content on the internet), just like natural gas, butane, propane, etc., so burning it will produce power. In that case, when driving at a specific rate of speed, you would require less throttle (gasoline) with hydrogen fuel added to the burn, which would give you better gas mileage.

OK, I guess the theory is possible. My main question is how is the gas production regulated? How much is available for WOT conditions? Is gas production constant or can it be increased/decreased, based on load or RPM?

So many questions, so few grey cells.
 
Okay, time to bring out my inner geek, and have him team up with my outer geek to bring this to a swift conclusion. HHO...Brown's gas...whatever they'll call it, as it's an electrolytic product of water, it will take more energy to produce than combustion of the resulting components will yield. When you use hydrogen(or anything else) as a fuel, combining with oxygen to yield various oxides, the resulting products are lower in energy than the starting components. This is why combustion happens. In the case of hydrogen (H2) combusting with oxygen (O2), you have 2H2 +O2 = 2H2O, where water is the lower energy product. The release of energy is what makes the combustion a spontaneous and self-sustaining process until either the oxygen or hydrogen is exhausted. So, more energy is required to make it than burning it releases. This would mean that your electrical system would have to provide the extra energy. On the other hand, if you generate the hydrogen outside of the vehicle, using solar or wind power(or wall current, it's cheaper than gasoline, afterall), to electrolyze water, it could be a cost-effective system. The folks at united nuclear: www.unitednuclear.com have been working on hydrogen conversions for a while, and are currently at an impasse due to regulations on materials necessary for the safe storage of hydrogen gas. But, it's worth a look. Hopefully we won't have anyone maimed by an exploding mason jar full of hydrogen...
 
pharmboy said:
HHO...Brown's gas...whatever they'll call it, as it's an electrolytic product of water, it will take more energy to produce than combustion of the resulting components will yield.
Click to expand...
I have a chemistry background (albeit very rusty from disuse) and agree completely with this statement within the context of using the liberated Hydrogen and Oxygen as the actual fuel. I'll have to look at this thing more closely, but I gather that the idea is separating the gases without diverting them into separate vessels. Then this weird (and apparently somewhat stable? hmmm...) mixture is introduced to the vaporized fuel stream and acts to further reduce the size of the droplets through reducing surface tension or some such thing. I dunno... there are many question marks here. The net result at a glance is that the fuel charge has much greater surface area and is thus more efficiently burned.

I'm probably missing tons of stuff. It'd probably take a while for me to balance even the simplest equation at this point.

I hope that I've thoroughly confused the issue for anyone with the misfortune of reading this fatigue-induced rambling. ;-)
 
Don't we have some FABO members in South Carolina? Anyone close to the town where all these vehicles have been outfitted? It would be interesting to talk with the Police Chief to hear what the real story is. If no one steps up to the plate I may have to make a day trip myself...
C
 
Try sizing what one of these would need to be to have a real effect, and compare it with the tiny size of these typical HHO generators. The gap is astounding. I've calculated out quite a few numbers on these, mostly because I get people asking me about these systems all the time where I work. I wish I could tell them something like "Sure, it works, you just have to add around 10 degrees more timing and 10% less fuel." But doing just a few back of the envelope calculations tells me this idea's doomed. You'd need some really extraordinary proof to convince me that a claim of this working is valid and not the result of a poorly done test or an outright con artist. Here's some of the numbers I calculated.

Amount of water needed to separate to get the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline: 2.2 gallons
Minimum amount of gasoline a gas-powered generator would need to separate 2.2 gallons of water: 3.3 gallons

Mass flow rate of the typical 1 liter / minute hydrogen generator: 5 grams per hour
Mass flow rate of a single fuel injector on a mild street V8: 8600 grams per hour - and there are eight of them.

memike said:
This is very interesting, I would probably up grade to a higher amp alternator.
This sure has my attention :read2:
Click to expand...
I've done the math, and if you wanted an onboard hydrogen generator that could take a car from 20 mpg to 30 mpg, you'd need a minimum of 2500 amps. That's not a typo. If you used an alternator, you'd better get a Gilmer belt or a chain to drive it, and the 50+ hp this alternator would sap way more fuel than you'd get by burning the hydrogen. To power it, you'd be looking at a battery pack recharged by household power... and to have it last a decent amount of time, expect it to weigh a metric ton.
 
daredevil said:
A friend of mine is the coo of this company. This technology is not snake oil. Some of yawl may know him as he campaigns the 60 dodge named fugly in nss http://www.statesman.com/business/content/business/stories/technology/06/04/0604ronn.html
Click to expand...

Not to diss you or your friend, but on the front of the scorpion car, that looks like a standard PC computer case that sell everywhere (with the cool see through side). If the car costs $150,000 wouldn't they use something other than off the shelf stuff?

image_7140732.jpg
 
a guy that comes to our local cruise has built a hydrogen generator and equipped this on this 69 gmc truck with a built small block. the engine compression is high enough that he cannot run any lower than 93 octane fuel or it will knock. after installing the kit on his truck he can now run 87 octane fuel. gained respectable low end power and gained 3 mpg. not a very high mpg rating but consider that fact that he went from 93 to 87 octane. it does make a difference and he drives this truck every day. he is saving some money. he used some very good stainless steel in his setup.he has around $300 in the entire kit. but i have seen this work and it is a nice setup. i can get pictures for people at the next show if needed. he likes to do this stuff and will help me to build one. he is building one for a diesel right now. my cummins gets 20.5 mpg empty and 16.5 loaded. it dynoed rwhp at 541 hp and 1325 ft lbs of torque at the wheels. we are going to install this on my truck and see what we gain or loose..
 
Has he ever done back to back dyno tests with no other change than turning the generator off? I've never seen anyone try this.
 
http://www.smacksboosters.110mb.com/ <--- This is supposed to be one of the more efficient systems on the net. Draws 20 amps and has 1.7 L/Minute of flow.

I still agree that the amount you are gaining is cancelled out by the load on the alternator. I know some people are using much higher voltage but I am not sure if that helps or not.
 
And 1 liter per minute of hydrogen is 5 grams per hour, so that's still less than 10 grams an hour. Looks pretty tiny next to a single 19 lb/hr fuel injector. Sadly, I won't dispute that it may be one of the more effective systems... but only for lack of decent competition.
 
The site linked in the first post annoyed me, simply because it reminded me how global warming is still widely accepted and probably will be for a very very very long time.

Anyway, my neighbor told me that one of his coworkers made his own system and he got noticeable results; nothing mind-blowing, but it does seem to have an effect.
 
There are interesting ways to fool your engine into thinking it is smaller displacement or to add a inert gas to the combustion chamber as filler to get away with less air/fuel misture. EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) was the begining of this when emissions became an issue and Detroit had to figure a way to run leaner mixtures. The Mopar Lean Burn system also relies heavily on proper functioning EGR. Steam or water vapor injection provides many benifits with a few added problems on the same front.... It is an inert filler, has the potential to expand under heat to provide some energy benifit while still cooling combustion temps heading off detonation. The down side comes in the form of corrosion potential and possible hydraulicing from malfunctions causing severe engine damage. As far as trying to break down hydrogen and oxygen from electrolysis that has been pretty well covered by those more educated than I....
 
A couple years ago I read about a 6 stroke engine that was being developed by somebody very popular in the automotive field, maybe Edelbrock??? I don`t recall who it was now but the engine used water injection after the exhaust stroke to produce one steam powered explosion and subsequent exhaust stroke. It was said to save up to 40% in fuel.
 
I installed one of these kits on a vehicle (2004 Hyundai Santa Fe 3.5L) this afternoon. I'll report back with the results as I get feedback from my customer.
:read2: :afro:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top