Any ideas would be helpful.

[tacit_k]

Ok so I am ready to bite and at least try and build one. I will not put this on my truck as it seems to work off of vacuum and I am reluctant to run a flammable gas through a compressor wheel, just seems like an unwise choice to me.

What I would like to do is build something like this one here. (http://www.fuelfromh2o.com/specs.html)

As you may have guessed I am not willing to spend the $ they want so what I am wondering is if anyone here knows of a water tight enclosure (aluminum or stainless) that has an interior volume of at least 3” x 5” x 7”? I also do not wish to enlist a machine shop since as an experiment I want to keep cost down.

[mcbg]

the one that my buddy has is in a canning jar- 1 pint- with a plactic lid.
has an aquarium 1 way air valve for intake. inside is a piece of plexiglass ad the wire--looks very simple. just put in a fuse (15A) and add some baking soda to the distilled water- at what ratio I do not know.

[HarryN]

Perhaps the first step is to make sure it will work in your vehicle and driving conditions.

Rather than go through all of the cost and pain of making a gas generator, just buy the gas (H2) and a regulator. You should be able to find a gas regulator (such as one from an acetylene tank or similar) and turn it on Very Low while driving down the road.

If H2 really does what is claimed (and I will not take sides here) then you will see it very quickly. If not, enjoy the fact that you did not pay big money to find out.

Perhaps this is obvious, but if you use WVO in your diesel truck now, then you are already doing the world a favor at a relatively inexpensive price point for fuel.

[DieselBurps]

Ok so I am ready to bite and at least try and build one. I will not put this on my truck as it seems to work off of vacuum and I am reluctant to run a flammable gas through a compressor wheel, just seems like an unwise choice to me.
...
I am wondering is if anyone here knows of a water tight enclosure (aluminum or stainless) that has an interior volume of at least 3” x 5” x 7”? I also do not wish to enlist a machine shop since as an experiment I want to keep cost down.
Why not build a simple one using a section of PVC pipe for the main enclosure? I've got my setup partially built now and have under $100 in parts - with enough extra to make at least one more unit.

I'm not sure I'd worry about having the turbo suck in the gas - the intake side doesn't run that hot and the gas is very compressible. I'd be more concerned about glow plugs and heater grids - make sure you don't turn on the HHO until the engine has warmed up.

[ForcedInduction]

Make sure you don't waste time turning it on at all! Here is an idea: Try to break the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy. It can't be done period, least of all with a $100 sewer pipe.

"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or transferred from one body to another, but the total amount of energy remains constant."

[luckys420]

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another or transferred from one body to another, but the total amount of energy remains constant."

you need to go back to school and grasp a better understanding of what you quoted.

hydrogen (not energy, energy is only transferring) is being created through a simple chemical reaction.

Hydrogen contains energy. the energy is released through combustion the energy is transferred the the engine. heat out the exhaust and propel the car forward. Energy was neither created or destroyed just transferred from one body to another.

"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

since hydrogen is flammable and creates heat you only further justified these persons action by quting the law above.
you can insert , gasoline, WVO, diesel, ethanol in place of hydrogen above and you get the same result.

[ForcedInduction]

Energy was neither created or destroyed just transferred from one body to another.
...
since hydrogen is flammable and creates heat you only further justified these persons action by quting the law above.
Right on the first, but not on the second. Mechanical (crankshaft) - electrical (alternator) - electrochemical ("generator") - chemical (combustion) and back to mechanical. Each of those steps has an energy loss through friction, electrical resistance and heat production. The energy released by burning Brown's gas is less than the energy consumed/lost in producing the gas.

you can insert , gasoline, WVO, diesel, ethanol in place of hydrogen above and you get the same result.
Completely wrong. Those fuels are already made, you just pour them in your tank and the engine burns it. The engine does not have to expend any energy to refine/grow/extract/etc them.

If these Brown's gas "generators" actually worked they would be known as perpetual motion engines. As long as they have a water supply (They should, the world is 70% covered by it) they would be making their own fuel and have excess power to run other things. All you would have to do is build a "generator" big enough and water is the only fuel you would ever need!

[luckys420]

thought that generating hydrogen from the power of your engine was argued thoroughly enough to stop anyone from trying it. I thought they were referring to producing hydrogen with aluminum and acid. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I did not look at the link above.:rolleyes:

[ForcedInduction]

Right. If they really worked to extract hydrogen from water (without consuming more energy than the hydrogen itself contains) these scam devices would be revolutionary and there wouldn't be a need for oil.

That energy loss bit is the whole reason there isn't a hydrogen infrastructure. Oil and natural gas have already been produced over millions of years by the earth and the sun, likewise vegetable oil gets most of its energy input from the sun and earth. The energy it takes from humans to refine petro/veggie oils into fuel is a tiny speck of what the sun contributed.

[DieselBurps]

Right. If they really worked to extract hydrogen from water (without consuming more energy than the hydrogen itself contains) these scam devices would be revolutionary and there wouldn't be a need for oil.

That energy loss bit is the whole reason there isn't a hydrogen infrastructure. Oil and natural gas have already been produced over millions of years by the earth and the sun, likewise vegetable oil gets most of its energy input from the sun and earth. The energy it takes from humans to refine petro/veggie oils into fuel is a tiny speck of what the sun contributed.
The error in your logic here is that you are anticipating that the hydrogen and oxygen is being burned in place of petroleum. That's not the idea at all - instead the fast burning gases are supposed to speed the burning of the conventional fuel, allowing it to burn more completely and at a faster rate. It's not a miracle that is occurring - it's more on the lines of good head design, porting and polishing, or forced air induction contributing to efficiency. None of these will magically propel your vehicle - but they can add the ability for the engine to breath better and get more power out of the fuel it is using.

I'd suggest picking up a copy of Forest's book on SVO - he's got a good chapter on how fuel burns in an engine. After reading that, take another look at this HHO stuff and see if you have a better understanding of what it is attempting to achieve. It's about increasing efficiency - not perpetual motion. Nobody (with a clue anyway) is claiming perpetual motion - just better fuel mileage.

It makes even more sense with WVO - as the more viscous fuel tends to have a slower burn rate - and that is one of the primary causes of carbon deposits forming. If the fuel doesn't finish burning by the time it hits the surface of the piston or cylinder walls, it can leave a carbon residue that will - in time - cause problems. If the HHO injection helps burn the fuel more completely, this issue may be less of a concern. There's a lot of experimentation that needs to take place still.

[ForcedInduction]

The error in your logic here is that you are anticipating that the hydrogen and oxygen is being burned in place of petroleum.
There is no error at all. The fundamental idea of the device is to increase MPG. Since the device consumes more energy than the engine can gain from it, there will either be a reduction in MPG or very little change. The only way it could increase MPG is by burning in place of (substituting) primary fuel!

allowing it to burn more completely and at a faster rate.
That is your error here. Browns gas does not alter HOW the fuel burns in any way, its simply an additional fuel to be burned.

All the fuel is burned in an engine, if its not you will get smoke and/or high emissions. Most of the fuel's energy is absorbed through friction and converted to heat. That is the basis of an engines mechanical and thermal efficiency, something brown's gas can do nothing to affect other than itself burning more efficiently than the primary fuel.

None of these will magically propel your vehicle - but they can add the ability for the engine to breath better and get more power out of the fuel it is using.
Read the last sentence above the quote again. Changing the head design, porting and polishing or forced air induction physically alter the mechanical and thermal efficiency of the engine! They reduce the power needed to get air moving in/out of the engine which results in more energy going into the driveline rather than another cylinder's piston.

I'd suggest picking up a copy of Forest's book on SVO - he's got a good chapter on how fuel burns in an engine. Which has nothing at all to do with these Brown's gas scams.

After reading that, take another look at this HHO stuff and see if you have a better understanding of what it is attempting to achieve. Key word there. The only thing these scams actually achieve is making the scammers rich.

It's about increasing efficiency - not perpetual motion. Nobody (with a clue anyway) is claiming perpetual motion - just better fuel mileage. Which IS basically related to perpetual motion. The device consumes more energy than its product releases, claiming otherwise is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.

It makes even more sense with WVO - as the more viscous fuel tends to have a slower burn rate - and that is one of the primary causes of carbon deposits forming.
Incorrect on both of those as well. Viscosity has little to do with burn rate, it burns slower because its not the same substance as diesel. WVO has not been converted to proper BioDiesel and the resulting carbon deposits are whats left of dirty (or lack of) combustion of the impurities WVO contains.

If the HHO injection helps burn the fuel more completely, this issue may be less of a concern. Too bad it doesn't do that. :rolleyes: If you are worried about carbon there are four things you can do that have known, proven results.
1: Get your engine running properly.
2: Use Diesel.
3: Use biodiesel.
4: Install water injection.

There's a lot of experimentation that needs to take place still. WHY? Electrolysis producing hydrogen/oxygen has been around for over 208 years! (Discovered by William Nicholson and Johann Ritter in 1800)

HHO/hydrogen/Brown's Gas/water gas "generators" are no different than the 100/200mpg carb scam. LOTS of people have plans and/or kits (and would be HAPPY to sell them to you), yet they are nowhere to be found in the real world or on a single production vehicle from ANY company, just a few "radical" individuals. :rolleyes:

If these devices really worked, don't you think there would at least be some small startup company designing an engine around a brown's gas "generator"? Or do you think big bad Big Oil prevents every car company from installing them, yet doesn't bother with anyone selling plans or kits?

[DieselBurps]

There is no error at all. The fundamental idea of the device is to increase MPG. Since the device consumes more energy than the engine can gain from it, there will either be a reduction in MPG or very little change. The only way it could increase MPG is by burning in place of (substituting) primary fuel!
And you know this how? You actually tried it out, measured the results and are reporting your conclusions? Perhaps you can detail the full experiment here... The OTHER way it could increase MPG is by burning the primary fuel faster and more completely.

That is your error here. Browns gas does not alter HOW the fuel burns in any way, its simply an additional fuel to be burned.
Have you looked into the burn rate of hydrogen vs diesel/gasoline or WVO? What happens when you push a high speed wave of flame over the primary fuel during the course of 1 engine revolution? Here's a simple experiment for you - take a match and go light a tree. See how well you get things burning. Then - take a 5 gallon can of gasoline, pour it all over the tree - and light it. See if anything is different... You may note how the various fuel types burn at different rates - yet the slower burning wood ignites more readily and is more rapidly consumed in flame with the addition of something called an "accelerant".

All the fuel is burned in an engine, if its not you will get smoke and/or high emissions. Most of the fuel's energy is absorbed through friction and converted to heat. That is the basis of an engines mechanical and thermal efficiency, something brows gas can do nothing to affect.
Really? We have achieved 100% efficiency with all internal combustion engines now? When did we do that? Amazing. :rolleyes: The reality here is you are making things up and have no idea at all about what is going on inside an engine.

Read the last sentence above the quote again.
And you may take some sand, a hammer - and go pound that sand... If you aren't going to listen anyway...

Which has nothing at all to do with these Brown's gas scams.
The scams typically are obvious because they promise something for nothing. The folks actually playing around with this and having various results are a little more interesting to listen to.

Which IS basically related to perpetual motion. The device consumes more energy than its product releases, claiming otherwise is contrary to the laws of thermodynamics.
Only if you don't understand how fuel burns in an engine, the amount of time it has to burn - and the various burn rates of fuels. Maybe you should go read Forest's book and learn something.

Look - your simplistic understanding of engines here does NOT allow for the possibility of WVO coking up an engine. In your own words:
All the fuel is burned in an engine, if its not you will get smoke and/or high emissions.
So - how do you explain the possibility of coking up an engine on diesel? That can happen if you allow it to idle excessively. There have been several people on these forums that have gotten to rebuild an engine prematurely - coking it up on diesel alone.

Incorrect on both of those as well. Viscosity has little to do with burn rate, it burns slower because its not the same substance as diesel. WVO has not been converted to proper BioDiesel and the resulting carbon deposits are whats left of dirty (or lack of) combustion of the impurities WVO contains.
Ok - this is ignorance on your part again. :rolleyes:

Too bad it doesn't do that. :rolleyes: If you are worried about carbon there are four things you can do that have known, proven results.
1: Get your engine running properly.
2: Use Diesel.
3: Use biodiesel.
4: Install water injection.

So why are you here if you know nothing about WVO usage and aren't interested in learning? As I mentioned, you can coke up an engine on diesel if you try hard enough - and it's probably a reasonable assumption that biodiesel will do it also.

WHY? Electrolysis producing hydrogen/oxygen has been around for over 108 years!
But it hasn't been used with WVO much at all. The accelerant may work well to help mitigate any carbon problems.

HHO/hydrogen/Brown's Gas/water gas "generators" are no different than the 100/200mpg carb scam. People have plans (and would be HAPPY to sell them to you for a small fee), yet they are nowhere to be found in the real world or on a single production vehicle from ANY company. :rolleyes:
Whatever. Hey - at what point in time did you decide you know everything? :rolleyes: I've got some bad news for you... Most of the people on this forum know a LOT more about engines than you seem to. Maybe it's because they don't think they know everything and are still capable of learning.

Have you ever looked into propane on diesels? The same general principle applies - the propane burns faster than diesel and raises the efficiency of the burn process. It also adds fuel to the mix - but the additional power generated makes it popular. Hydrogen burns even faster and the addition of oxygen to the mix cannot hurt combustion efficiency much at all.

[ForcedInduction]

And you know this how? You actually tried it out, measured the results and are reporting your conclusions?
Yes.

Perhaps you can detail the full experiment here... Its a waste of time repeating myself. Look on one of the other threads.

The OTHER way it could increase MPG is by burning the primary fuel faster and more completely.
Which it does not do. Period.

Have you looked into the burn rate of hydrogen vs diesel/gasoline or WVO? What happens when you push a high speed wave of flame over the primary fuel during the course of 1 engine revolution? It blows out the flame.

Here's a simple experiment for you - take a match and go light a tree. See how well you get things burning. Then - take a 5 gallon can of gasoline, pour it all over the tree - and light it. See if anything is different... Here is an experiment for you, open a science book. :rolleyes:

Really? We have achieved 100% efficiency with all internal combustion engines now? Again, please open a science book. An engine's efficiency is determined by how much (%) of the fuel is turned into mechanical power. X% is waste heat from combustion that goes into the coolant and out the exhaust, X% is used to overcome friction of the moving engine parts X% is emissions out the exhaust and the remaining X% is whats left to power the drivetrain. Throw some basic math into the equation and it comes out to 100%.

The reality here is you are making things up and have no idea at all about what is going on inside an engine.
No, the reality here is you are ignorant to science and reality. Take your head out of your rear end, wipe the mud out of your eyes and look.

And you may take some sand, a hammer - and go pound that sand... If you aren't going to listen anyway...
Childish behavior does nothing to advance your position.

The scams typically are obvious because they promise something for nothing. The folks actually playing around with this and having various results are a little more interesting to listen to. There are lots of folks that say the Tornado and fuel line magnets work too, and thousands more are sold every day. That doesn't mean they actually do, only that they have not conducted any controlled tests and they are believing the psychological hype of installing something and thinking it works. "Interesting" has NOTHING to do with how credible, reliable or accurate they are.

Only if you don't understand how fuel burns in an engine, the amount of time it has to burn - and the various burn rates of fuels.
Maybe you should go read any engineering book and learn anything about how engines work since you clearly don't understand.

So - how do you explain the possibility of coking up an engine on diesel? Look - your lack of understanding of engines does NOT allow for the possibility me teaching you anything since you are unwilling to learn. That said, diesel contains carbon. Any fuel with carbon will leave residue/waste.

There have been several people on these forums that have gotten to rebuild an engine prematurely - coking it up on diesel alone. No, thats because ALL engines wear out at different rates.

Ok - this is ignorance on your part again.
Don't talk to yourself, it makes people think you are crazy. (Maybe you are?)

So why are you here if you know nothing about WVO usage...
Do you see me posting in the WVO sections? No? Good. Back on subject.

and aren't interested in learning?
I've learned quite a bit. I'm here to educate people on WHY this scam does not work. People like you only perpetuate the myth that it does.

As I mentioned, you can coke up an engine on diesel if you try hard enough - and it's probably a reasonable assumption that biodiesel will do it also. Partially prong. Biodiesel DOES contain carbon, but not as much. This can be seen by the reduced soot out the exhaust and in the oil.

But it hasn't been used with WVO much at all.
Got any proof of that? No? Didn't think so.

The accelerant may work well to help mitigate any carbon problems. Too bad Brown's gas is not an accelerant.

Whatever. Hey - at what point in time did you decide you know everything? Not everything, just more than people ignorant of reality like you.

I've got some bad news for you... Most of the people on this forum know a LOT more about engines than you seem to.
http://www.amazing-animations.com/animations/laughter12.gif
If you are any example, I highly doubt that!

Have you ever looked into propane on diesels?
Yes. Its the same principal as Brown's gas. Propane is a simple additional fuel for power or substitutional fuel for economy, the major difference is the engine is not working to produce the fuel. If propane can be procured for cheap enough it can actually save the operator money!

Hydrogen burns even faster and the addition of oxygen to the mix cannot hurt combustion efficiency much at all.
Thats because it does not change it at all.

Please, please, PLEASE for the love of Flying Spaghetti Monster, open up a science and/or engineering book!

[DieselBurps]

Ok so I am ready to bite and at least try and build one. I will not put this on my truck as it seems to work off of vacuum and I am reluctant to run a flammable gas through a compressor wheel, just seems like an unwise choice to me.

What I would like to do is build something like this one here. (http://www.fuelfromh2o.com/specs.html)

As you may have guessed I am not willing to spend the $ they want so what I am wondering is if anyone here knows of a water tight enclosure (aluminum or stainless) that has an interior volume of at least 3” x 5” x 7”? I also do not wish to enlist a machine shop since as an experiment I want to keep cost down.
Great - it seems we have another "know-it-all" idiot that doesn't understand the "science" of flame propagation and doesn't want to take a moment to learn anything. He's skipped every question I have raised about the holes in his logic and cannot address them - as it would risk admitting those faults. The idiot wants to point to science books to explain the basics of thermodynamics - but we aren't talking about creating additional energy here. As almost every single response he has given is incorrect, I guess this one is a good one for the "ignore" function.

If you've read Forest's chapter on how WVO burns as opposed to diesel, you'll better understand the theory of how the gas could help the efficiency of the combustion process. Combine that with a little experience just setting a car's timing and the effects it has on power and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there are ways to better tune the efficiency of an engine to give it better power and/or fuel efficiency. For a gas motor, adding the spark earlier (up to the point of conflicting with the piston direction) can boost the power - likewise retarding it can drop power. Hydrogen gas has a very fast burn rate - especially in the presence of a balanced amount of oxygen.

If that doesn't make sense to some folks, perhaps some remedial Chemistry courses would be a good way to begin their education. Hey - that's a type of "science", isn't it? :D After the basic Chemistry courses, you'll eventually get to Physical Chemistry - sort of a combination of Physics and Chemistry. That would be TWO "sciences", wouldn't it? That might take some time in some real college classes... Once you make it through that much schooling, consider getting under the hoods of many different cars and learning about what makes them run. Given a lot of background knowledge, you'll eventually be able to better understand the theory of what's being attempted with the HHO generators. I trust, tacit_k - that you've been through enough of this background material to make the theory a matter of interest and that's why you are looking into this experimentation? That's why I'm starting to "play" with an HHO generator.

[ForcedInduction]

Great - it seems we have another "know-it-all" idiot that doesn't understand the "science" of flame propagation and doesn't want to take a moment to learn anything.
Please read the forum rules.
http://www.frybrid.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5744

3. Ad hominem and personal attacks are not permitted. Criticize the ideas, not the people. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy describing the attempt to discredit an argument by merely attacking the credibility of the arguer. Excessive flaming will not be tolerated. Users who verbally assault the character or person of other posters on a regular basis will be banned. Moderator's judgment applies here. "You are wrong" is not a personal attack; "You're wrong because you are an idiot" is.

As almost every single response he has given is incorrect
http://www.amazing-animations.com/animations/laughter12.gif
What did I say about talking about yourself in the third person? :rolleyes:

I guess this one is a good one for the "ignore" function
PLEASE DO!!!!!! That would save me a LOT of side pain from laughing at your responses!

you'll better understand the theory of how the gas could help the efficiency of the combustion process. If you understood the combustion process you wouldn't be wasting my time.

Combine that with a little experience just setting a car's timing and the effects it has on power and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that there are ways to better tune the efficiency of an engine to give it better power and/or fuel efficiency.
No duh. I've been doing exactly that for YEARS, long before you came along.

That might take some time in some real college classes. I'll take a wild stab and guess you've never been to any? Probably so.

Once you make it through that much schooling, consider getting under the hoods of many different cars and learning about what makes them run.
Once I make it through? I've already done that AND I have over 5 years in field/shop experience! What do you have? Not much judging by your replies.

Given a lot of background knowledge, you'll eventually be able to better understand the theory of what's being attempted with the HHO generators.
I suggest you get cracking learning then, you have a looooooong ways to go before you actually understand what happens.

I trust, tacit_k - that you've been through enough of this background material to make the theory a matter of interest and that's why you are looking into this experimentation?
I trust you have heard the hype around it being pushed by scammers and ignorant "believers" that have fallen for the scams hook line and sinker? Don't believe a word they say tacit_k. Save your money and invest it in something worthwhile, like a tank of fuel or a service for your engine, they will actually benefit you in the end.

That's why I'm starting to "play" with an HHO generator.
The quote "There's a sucker born every minute" comes to mind. (Adam Forepaugh)

When you finish playing with your scam and actually want to LEARN something about it, please come back. :)

Here is another lesson: In a debate it helps to TRY and prove your point. Devolving into a sh*t slinging monkey is a sign of low intellect and you are incapable of proving your point. You lose.

[HarryN]

It is unfortunate that so many people have attempted to scam this area, that scientific testing is rarely attempted.

The main challenge, is that the simplistic thermodynamic models we learned as under grad engineers are - simplistic.

While it is true that all heat engines are limited by the energy in the fuel, the real fundamental limitations are:
- The "Burn Temperature - Outside Temperature" (thermodynamic efficiency)
- Fuel Burn completion
- Friction losses

At least those are the ones I am aware of. There are probably 100s more.

If you examine very large German and Dutch diesel enginers - like a MAN or Wartsilla 50 MW (about 100 million hp), you will see that they do several interesting things to improve efficiency far above the typical vehicle bound diesel:
- First, they push efficiencies above 40% - sometimes approaching upper 40s, so about 2 X a gas engine.
- The run at quite high boost pressures, and are very heavy to take this load
- They run at very low piston speeds. This is ONE of the ways they enhance fuel burn time / completion
- They spend a heck of a lot of time on fuel injection management
- The burn temperatures are quite high

The simple fact that they exist is evidence that efficiency can be improved from a basic diesel engine. I am not sure if H2 (from any source) is the answer, but it is interesting. - why ?

Because it potentially enhances the fuel burn temperature, and the fuel burn completion level. If it actually does this, then this does in fact make it thermodynamically feasible to improve efficiency. It might also lead to reduced engine life.

I have my doubts that making the H2 from electrolysis driven off the alternator is a good idea, but then again, a turbo which adds considerable back pressure to the engine to provide boost is not entirely obvious some times either.

I have seen scientific articles from Argonne National Labs that as little as 2% additional O2 is enough to provide substantial power boost in a large stationary diesel, so there is still room to improve in various creative ways.

The main point that concerns me is that so many people who are interested in a simple test to build / buy / test and prove the whole H2 addition question - seem to miss the amazingly simple concept of testing it out with a small tank of H2 or methane before committing to constructing / buying a gas generator.

This all seems to happen before there is any attempt to understand how much H2 is needed in order to make a difference (or not). This is really my point - The amount of H2 produced is relatively small compared to the air and fuel flow. How much H2 is needed - my unscientific guess would be at LEAST 1 - 3 % of the total air flow would need to be H2 to impact the burn significantly.

[ForcedInduction]

My point is this: I don't doubt adding additional O2 or some hydrogen to the mix is a bad thing, but making a "generator" that would need to violate several fundamental laws of science to actually work is not how to get it.

Buying a bottle of O2 and/or hydrogen would be far more cost effective, reliable and controllable (safe).

[tacit_k]

I trust, tacit_k - that you've been through enough of this background material to make the theory a matter of interest and that's why you are looking into this experimentation? That's why I'm starting to "play" with an HHO generator.

Ok a long time ago I worked on the Gen-IV project at Delco. It was the ECM for the indycar. I have read about how the O-sensor mistakes the additional oxygen and increases the fuel mixture to prevent a lean condition. I was looking at the circuit design to overcome this issue and then it sparked my interest in experimenting with this.

I have tried some of the hypermileage techniques and managed to get an extra 2.3 mpg out of my gasser (that is just over 10% just from changing my habits), I figured why the hell not if I can increase efficiency by an additional 5-10% that would pay for itself in just a few weeks with the mileage I drive, if not then I am no worse for the wear. What I really want to do is enlist the help of a smog mechanic to use the gas analyzer to see what is really going on.

I think there is a basic principal being missed here. The fire triangle, Heat, Fuel, Oxygen. If you change the balance of fuel and Oxygen what are the effects? Higher mileage? More heat? Does it really hurt to experiment?

I am not saying it will work any better or with any different results than simply using the voltage circuit to trick the o-sensor. But that is one of my planned tests, if I can secure a good analyzer.

The trick with the indy car was to run rich out of the pit and once up to speed use the telemetry to lean out the fuel right up to the point that the cylinders would almost over heat. I had some real nice bench footage where if you slowed the frames down you could see the exhaust stroke as the manifold got brighter at that cylinder. It is scary to run $500k worth of engine like that but it worked. :D

Indy takes skill, NASCAR, pfft drive fast turn left how hard is that?:D

[veggiesel]

For the life of me I do not understand why you are so addament about not wanting anyone to experiment, and possibly break some of the rules of physics. I do not know if this is possible but open your mind and use some creative imagination instead of trying to discourage folks from trying thoughts, & ideas different from yours. Who knows possibly the answer to some of the problems involved may accually be solved by a member of this forum. Remember a bumble bee is not susspose to be able to fly according to some of the laws of physics.:D:D:D

[john_galt]

Remember a bumble bee is not susspose to be able to fly according to some of the laws of physics.:D:D:D

If they defy anything it's that their flight mechanism can't be mathematically modeled in a simple way. It is not know how the myth came about exactly, but it is likely that an aerodynamicist/physicist was asked to explain how bumblebees fly and he obligingly did a brief analysis of the wing, making several simplifications as he did so. The result was that the wings could not support the bee in flight, but all this really showed was that his mathematical model of the wings was far too simplified.

[moon161]

Bumblebees are unable to fly according to classical thin airfoil theory. Low speed, large scale wind tunnels studies of articulated models done in the 90's showed that insect wings generate, then trap a series of vortices over the wing to generate lift.

This misunderstanding of real world fluid mechanics is less global that the principal of conservation of energy and not validated by observation (bees are observed to fly).

The principal of conservation of energy is well validated by observation. This statement is not meant to quash inquiry with the argument to authority. I'm interested if changes in break specific fuel consumption above & beyond chemical energy added by the addition of hydrogen can be found in a well tuned engine. That being said, your fuel energy cost to add that hydrogen, is generously speaking, 5 or 6 times what you put back in as hydrogen.