Jump to content
nokiamutt

Save fuel HHo generator ?

Recommended Posts

Crikey, there's some tech for you - who'd have thought Will would know so much about vapour. :unsure:

Oh, hang on... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all sounds a little hocus pocusy to me, although I do remember at school we made a free energy generator which worked by converting waste energy in the air to electricity, if I remember right it converted radio waves into electricity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Crikey, there's some tech for you - who'd have thought Will would know so much about vapour. :unsure:

Oh, hang on... :ph34r:

:lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It all sounds a little hocus pocusy to me, although I do remember at school we made a free energy generator which worked by converting waste energy in the air to electricity, if I remember right it converted radio waves into electricity.

You dont need any fancy machinery to do this. The primary function of a normal radio or tv antenna is actually to convert electromagnetical waves into electrical current...

Much more exiting would be to come up with some kind of clever magnetic design which would harvest energy of the earths rotation. Theoretically speaking this should be possible... Some mad russian scientist actually claims to have made such a device while researching the searl effect. Somehow I just dont feel conviced...

Realistically speaking, mankinds best chance of getting "free" energy would be to boost the research projects at the Iter facillity. When this technology reach break-even it will provide practically unlimited energy with very little pollution and very little risk of something going wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But down here in the south your engine would go backwards :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or move to a country which doesn't make tax account for more than half the cost of fuel :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After being somewhat amazed that a person would use their level of education to force his side of a debate, we decided to do a very practical test and let only the results and not our opinions be put on paper, to be debated at great lengths later.

Fact No. 1 a 2.5tdi 90 land rover filled with diesel to the top of the neck mileage zeroed and the driven for 91.1 miles and then refilled to the same place taking 17.8litres of fuel which works out at 23.3mpg.

Fact No. 2 the same 90 was then driven the same route but back home, then refilled again to the same place and the mileage then taken 92.4 and it took 14.6litres of fuel which is 28.8mpg The difference in mileage is unknown, we put it down to round a bouts etc.

The outward journey was with his HHO device not working and the return with it on. Please debate away, but without pulling rank.

Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After being somewhat amazed that a person would use their level of education to force his side of a debate,

Isn't that how you win an argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After being somewhat amazed that a person would use their level of education to force his side of a debate, we decided to do a very practical test and let only the results and not our opinions be put on paper, to be debated at great lengths later.

Fact No. 1 a 2.5tdi 90 land rover filled with diesel to the top of the neck mileage zeroed and the driven for 91.1 miles and then refilled to the same place taking 17.8litres of fuel which works out at 23.3mpg.

Fact No. 2 the same 90 was then driven the same route but back home, then refilled again to the same place and the mileage then taken 92.4 and it took 14.6litres of fuel which is 28.8mpg The difference in mileage is unknown, we put it down to round a bouts etc.

The outward journey was with his HHO device not working and the return with it on. Please debate away, but without pulling rank.

Steve.

Was it 91.1 miles up hill on journey 1, then downhill on the way home?

My parents live 25 miles away from me, my daily driver has an onboard computer, driving to their house I get 48mpg, driving home I get 32mpg. These figures are the best figures I have got by driving as economically as possible over a number of journeys. I wouldn't have said their house was much lower than ours but that's the only explanation I can come up with.

Do you see why your "Facts" are flawed?

Sotal (Bsc hons) :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work out my fuel consumption exactly using an Excel spreadsheet. The calcs are easy to work out. It has the following columns:

Date, kilo reading, litres, cost, total litres, total cost, cost per litre, l/100 per tank and l/100 cumulative.

I have been keeping exact figures over the last 235 000 kms since June 1996. The cost per litre has multiplied by 6! and the l/100 cumulative is hovering around 10.3 l/100, something like 29mpg. The tank to tank figure is only reliable if the tank is filled to the same level each time, which is difficult with diesel foaming, so the only really accurate figure is the cumulative consumption over quite a few tanks of fuel. Also, when fuel is cheap (!) I fill up jerry cans which takes a while to work through the system, ie it makes the 'tank to tank' figure meaningless.

The results given in the post above are hardly scientific, but if you keep it up for a few months the figures will become more accurate.

ps. If anyone wants a copy of the spreadsheet, pm me with email address. It could easily be modified to show results in mpg as I don't think litres/100 miles means much to anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The results that i posted are just what they are, taking them or leave them. I have little interest in debating with anyone about uphill downhill or which way the wind was blowing and i am for sure not keeping fuel and mileage readings for 3 years. As i am much more interested in LPG but that even got a somewhat negative attack by people who think they know but haven’t tried it themselves. But i would like to hear from people who have first hand knowledge like the subject poster of his experiences and that of others. So unless iam asked a question about my personnel knowledge & experience of HHO i will leave this particular subject to others. Thanks for being so open minded and the bashing.

Steve.

51 years experience from the University of live.

Oh yes and 20 years as a senior research engineer for the science council.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Steve,

Have you run the Landy on a gas analiser with the HHO running at the MOT station?

Reason I ask is that I'm running a 300tdi within the M25, and will fall foul of the TFL regs. in a couple of years.

Do you think that HHO could 'water down' (excuse the pun!) the emissions to comply with euro iv ?

I'm already running a 'Smartveg' veg. oil conversion - but that's not green according to TFL! (Transport for London)

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are adding both oxygen and hydrogen which will improve the burn and remove more of the unwanted partials i.e. clean up the exhaust. Do they just check the emissions or the insulation of the equipment? I must say that I have found the exhaust is cleaner and have used it as one of the tools required to get old smokes tested. But I have never done a on the spot comparison with the HHO on then off, the last place I want to hang about is a mot station and I have not got the equipment at home. If it is a one off test you could add as many jars as was needed to reach the requirement they cost all but nothing to make if you want the plans pm me.

Steve

I read with intrest that the Canadian goverment is to install HHO generators on some state bussies to emprove emissions and mpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always blatantly cheat as Land Rover have in the past with "emissions spec" engines, they bolt an air pump to the engine and route air straight into the exhaust. Now, officially, the extra oxygen helps to burn unburnt stuff in the exhaust gas and make it cleaner - the fact that you're also diluting your exhaust gases with clean air can't hurt the emissions either!

However, I don't know how TFL will be working this but I doubt they're going to take measurements or MOT data from every vehicle, rather go by the official emissions figures from the factory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re: insurace and modifications

beg to differ. I run 4 vehicles, including Discovery 2.5TDi and all have been converted to run on veggie oil and all are insured with Direct Line and all attract absolutely no aditional premium plus I get a cool insurance certificate which says converted to vegetable oil.

Some mods are accepted, but I don't know about HHO

Biodave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to official Canadian government site please?

"I read with intrest that the Canadian goverment is to install HHO generators on some state bussies to emprove emissions and mpg"

This seems to be a much-repeated rumour. Maybe if you read it often enough it will become true?

Ah, I found it myself: read this CAREFULLY

" TORONTO -- Stuart Energy Systems Corporation (TSX:HHO), a hydrogen infrastructure company, today announced that it has been awarded approximately $300,000 in funding from Natural Resources Canada, through the Canadian Transportation Fuel Cell Alliance (CTFCA) program, for the preliminary engineering of three electrolysis-based hydrogen-fueling stations.

These stations, when built, are intended to support demonstration projects involving hydrogen-powered shuttle buses. The targeted locations for these projects are in Ottawa and Toronto, Ontario, and in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. These projects will develop market familiarity and consumer acceptance for hydrogen-powered vehicles and hydrogen fueling infrastructure, and ultimately facilitate the commercialization of these technologies. Phase 1 of the project contemplates the project engineering study. Deployment of the fueling stations will be dependent upon the availability of the hydrogen-powered shuttle buses."

Hydrogen-powered shuttle buses. This is hydrogen fuel cell technology. The hydrogen will be produced by electrolysis at stations, not on the buses themselves. As this is the normal way of making hydrogen, this is hardly surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Link to official Canadian government site please?

"I read with intrest that the Canadian goverment is to install HHO generators on some state bussies to emprove emissions and mpg"

This seems to be a much-repeated rumour. Maybe if you read it often enough it will become true?

Ah, I found it myself: read this CAREFULLY

" TORONTO -- Stuart Energy Systems Corporation (TSX:HHO), a hydrogen infrastructure company, today announced that it has been awarded approximately $300,000 in funding from Natural Resources Canada, through the Canadian Transportation Fuel Cell Alliance (CTFCA) program, for the preliminary engineering of three electrolysis-based hydrogen-fueling stations.

These stations, when built, are intended to support demonstration projects involving hydrogen-powered shuttle buses. The targeted locations for these projects are in Ottawa and Toronto, Ontario, and in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. These projects will develop market familiarity and consumer acceptance for hydrogen-powered vehicles and hydrogen fueling infrastructure, and ultimately facilitate the commercialization of these technologies. Phase 1 of the project contemplates the project engineering study. Deployment of the fueling stations will be dependent upon the availability of the hydrogen-powered shuttle buses."

Hydrogen-powered shuttle buses. This is hydrogen fuel cell technology. The hydrogen will be produced by electrolysis at stations, not on the buses themselves. As this is the normal way of making hydrogen, this is hardly surprising.

Not the same item, i will look for it again and copy the link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says I am directing my comments at you personally?

The addition of a smiley to an insult does not make much difference, bear that in mind please.

I think you have a bit of a complex here. And that last sentence IS directed against you.

Let us keep this discussion technical only.

Agreed? Otherwise this thread will be locked or deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After being somewhat amazed that a person would use their level of education to force his side of a debate, we decided to do a very practical test and let only the results and not our opinions be put on paper, to be debated at great lengths later.

Fact No. 1 a 2.5tdi 90 land rover filled with diesel to the top of the neck mileage zeroed and the driven for 91.1 miles and then refilled to the same place taking 17.8litres of fuel which works out at 23.3mpg.

Fact No. 2 the same 90 was then driven the same route but back home, then refilled again to the same place and the mileage then taken 92.4 and it took 14.6litres of fuel which is 28.8mpg The difference in mileage is unknown, we put it down to round a bouts etc.

The outward journey was with his HHO device not working and the return with it on. Please debate away, but without pulling rank.

Steve.

Your engine might be wrongly adjusted in timing or pump setup, alternatively somewhat restricted in airflow.

A 90" Tdi should be able to reach much higher mpg than those stated above.

My own 200 tdi HCPU (with external cage-work, total weight about 2800kg) does about 34 mpg. A considerably lighter 90" should be able to reach similar or higher mpg values. If the unit actually works - you should be able to get better mpg values than similar engines without the unit!

Your experiment is interresting, but your experimental methodology is somewhat flawed - and thereby inviting "attack" from scientifically educated persons. When the driver is aware of wether the unit is engaged or not the difference in mpg can be down to sub-consioness psychological factors (ie the driver wanting to prove higher mpg). Wind speed and wind direction is another probable explanation.

Setup an experiment using standard scientific methods - if the results from such experiments still show increase in mpg using the unit there might be basis for further debate. Designing the experiments, so that only one parameter is variable between the different phases of the experiment is far from easy.

My view of this subject is still that the unit does not add energy to the engine, but consumes energy from the engine.

If you produce a hydrogen gas using this unit there will be less energy available in this amount of gas than the energy used to produce this gas.

If otherwise - ie you have a device which produces more energy than it consumes, why would you need the engine? Why not run it totally on this hydrogen gas?

Should experimental data aqquired using standard scientific methodology prove that you actually are able to produce more energy than consumed during electrolysis of water you will effectively have constructed a perpetum mobile, which in itself will require re-writing of several physical laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inventor has been dead for a few years but was found guilty of fraud. I quick search on google groups found this:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy....7cd1cee1e7&

Sunday Times Innovation 1 Dec. 96 (http://www.sunday-times.co.uk)

End of road for car that ran on Water

American court finds inventor of water-powered car is guilty of fraud.

Report by Tony Edwards

It appears to be the end of the road for maverick inventor Stanley Meyer and

his water-powered car after a recent American court verdict.

The car was a wonderful, if unlikely, dream while it lasted, offering a

pollution-free future powered by a limitless source of energy. But the

dream was shattered when Meyer was found guilty of fraud after his Water

Fuel Cell was tested before an Ohio judge.

It is rare for an inventor to be prosecuted for an invention that does not

work, but Meyer's problem was that he had been selling "dealerships",

offering investors the "right to do business'' in Water Fuel Cell tech-

nology in anticipation of the day when water would power anything From

domestic boilers to cars and aircraft.

But recently two suspicious investors could not wait for that day to dawn

and sued Meyer to get their money back.

Meyer defended, maintaining his long-held claim that the Water Fuel Cell was a truly

revolutionary invention that could split water into its two constituent

gases of hydrogen and oxygen far more efficiently than conventional

electrolysis. The secret, he said, was to "resonate" electricity at a very

high voltage through water and so "fracture" the hydrogen/oxygen molecular

bond. This, he claimed, opened the way for a car which would "run on wat-

er", powered simply by a car battery. The car would even run for ever since

the energy needed to continue the "fracturing" was so low that the bat-

tery could be recharged: from the engine's dynamo.

Meyer claimed to have adapted a 1.6-litre Volkswagen Dune Buggy to run on

water. He replaced the sparkplugs with "injectors" which, he said, sprayed

water as a fine mist in a "resonant cavity" where it was bombarded by a

succession of high-voltage electrical pulses. He claimed this instantly

converted the water into a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen that could be

combusted in the cylinders, driving the pistons just as in an ordinary

petrol engine.

One of the experts due toexamine the car was Michael Laughton, professor

of electrical engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield University, London,

but he was not allowed to see it. "Although Meyer had known about our

visit weeks in advance, when we arrived he made some lame excuse about why

the car wasn't working, so it was impossible to evaluate it," said

Laughton.

However, the one thing Meyer had built that appeared to work was his Water

Fuel Cell, and it was this device that the Ohio judge called as evidence in

the recent lawsuit.

The cell had been the centrepiece of Meyer's sales pitches. It was a

transparent cylinder of water inside which was a core of stainless steel

electrodes. When plugged into an electrical supply,the cell bubbled away

merrily, producing apparently copious amounts of gas that Meyer ignited

through a welding torch.To the layman it was an impressive performance and

hundreds of small investors signed up, but it did not impress three expert

witnesses in court.

They decided that there was nothing revolutionary about the cell at all and

that it was simply using conventional electrolysis.

Meyer was found guilty of "gross and egregious fraud" and ordered to repay

the investors their $25,000 (£15,000).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Hate paying ott for diesel so ... fuel tax

Just been testing this generator , it produces a gass called browns gas after its founder

The system uses distilled water ,1/2 t spoon of bycarb of soda and 12v to produce a system called hydroxy .

The gas is then fed into the intake manifold or anywhere in the intake air system , the one pot system i rigged up to test gives aprox 10% saving on fuel , a cooler and smoother engine , i didnt believe it till i tried it .

U can but the kit on the net but i built my own using plans from the co inventor , the info is for sale for about £100 but i have the full info on my pc if anyone wants to give it a try , it is big in the states but not yet taken off here , u can make systems with upto 6 generators up to a max saving of about 48% in fuel ,

The jar broke whilst offroad today so im already in the process of making a 4x4 proof version ,

This system does need a bit of setting up but with all the parts you can produce one for about £15, and it will take about an hour and a half to make with 15 mins to fit to the car .

Happy to make any systems or give a hand if ne one wants to give it a try .

Ive looked allover the net for any horror stories or systems that dont work and i cant find any ???

Bear in mind its in a mess as its been on the car offroad for 3 days in a row

This is where i fitted it , not the best place but it was a first try and a work in progress .

. . xDSC01631.jpg

x

This is the system with a bubbler and splash bottle fitted for offroad spill catch xx

xDSC01632.jpg

x xThe anode and cathode ..Stainless steel wire twisted for more surface area . cheap..use lockwire for moto x gripps x

xDSC01633.jpg

xMe just being lazy put gas into intake instead of manifold , still waiting for a metal tap cutter to put into manifold

xDSC01635.jpg

x View off generator out of the jar , bubbler pipe and red irrigation end 10p from b n q , u use this to set up the excjhange of freshair into the jar when the car is running

Green bottle is used to stop water gettin in the pipe and stopps flashback when u pipe it into the inlet manifold

x

xDSC01636.jpg

xx

xThe red bit is an adjustable bleed valve for air exchange .. again irrigation nozzle for gardening

And 12v connections , m8 bolt nut washer instant gasket and a wingnut ..

DSC01638.jpg

The steel screw should have a one way valve in it from an aquarium tank ..£2 . but i took it off for the test today and had to seal the hole 4 it to work ..

x x

xDSC01639.jpg

x xClose up of the anode and cathode along with the bubbler tube

xx x x

x

Anychance you could send me some idea of plans I fancy having a go at this project Jai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have raised some very good points but dont let the facts get in the way of a good story, we all have a battery on our cars, guess what it makes apart from electric, telling insurance companies about mods most ask you 'is it in anyway modified?' if you answer yes then they stop you there without even asking what. And a mod can mean just about anything.

HHo is not H very different beasts bit like saying diesel is petrol. lpg and any other fuel is stored HHO is not there is none before power suplied and none after if only we could produce more then it would have been in use years ago. It only helps make combution better more efficent, but like has been said before no free lunch. My two jars draw 10amps with is 120watts now we are talking power where does that come from, the engine turning the altenator thier comes a time when you start to make power to produce power it all about making what you have go futher a very hard thing to do and yes iam sure your right if and when we do we get clobberd by insurance, tax, H&s etc. just like you did when you told them about that cam you fitted or that nice set of wheels first you paid the tax man vat then the insurance went up the the charged you more vat.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

I been used this HHo gas for many months & have been developing the principle for years.

There are a few modifications that can be done to the build design that will increase the gas output many times.

Every time some one comes close to this modification on the net - their site vanishes - I wonder who does not want this broadcasted ?

I used to run a 7 litre set of jars on My Disco 300 TDi. The savings in fuel were considerable - often up to 45%.

BEWARE

I work for Ford/Landrover in Powertrain division. . . . . many discussions have been raised on this topic & one discussion with the guys who originally designed the 300TDi engine . . . . .

After lengthy discussions & testing on one of my vehicles, damage can be significant.

reasons as follows

The injected diesel fuel ignites ABOVE the piston & then saturates the area in burning gas in an even progressive explosion. This is done by a 2 stage injection method & prevents pinking & poor firing.

The HHo gas ignites some 6 times faster than diesel & totally buggers up the smooth firing.

The result is a much more fierce explosion that can often include the area in the piston bore between the piston/liner & even in the recess the piston ring lives in.

The resulting explosion is much hotter in places than the diesel burn & results in hardening of the valves, liner & piston crown.

Eventually these parts will crack & fail.

An engine with many miles on the clock, that rely's on burned carbon for a good bore & valve seal will suffer very quickly, as the carbon will be blasted away, then the above issues will be accelerated.

Smaller high revving petrol engines will survive much longer, possibly 30>60k after HHo system is installed.

Untill you have a system of at least 6 litres of liquid producing gas - drawing some 14 Amps per jar, the benifit is most likely imaginary. The gas output needs to be 4 litres + per minute before any useful benifit in fuel saving.

After a week of use, the gas output decreases considerably from the jars.

Big diesel engines will sustain damage, small revvy petrol engines will survive longer & benefit more.

Mail me with a land-line tel number (UK) & I'll divulge the details for more effecient gas production & type of wire to be used.

You also can feed the gas directly into air filter box.

You will need two liquid traps to remove liquid prior to feeding gas into engine.

You will also need a micro-switch cut off to stop unit operating at low revs as gas combines with moisture to form sulfuric acid in the exhaust & rots it thru.

Re safety, bleed valves etc are totally un necessary in the jars.

The total gas under the bonnet area at any one time will unlikely exceed 10cc/ml

Note

The explosive power of 20cc of Pure Hydrogen/Oxygen gas is considerable. . . . . If you bubbled this volume into a jar & ignited it IN the jar, the jar would explode. The same volume of gas at the top of the jar captured in soapy water bubbles produces a bang comparible with firing a Pistol next to your ear & your ears will ring for ages.

Make the decision whether you can afford to destroy your engine in 20,000 miles.

My unit design saved me 45% in Diesel over 5 months, but did damage the engine & is now removed.

A small zippy petrol engine powered KA or Fiesta for example with a BIG alternator is the way to go.

Filthy

gb@combatfx.freeserve.co.uk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy