Hydrogen conversion

[Gubni]

Ok, lots of reports of double fuel mileage and lots of reports that it's a scam. Anyone know someone who has done it? I think Bluegill was going to. How did that go?

[Bluegill]

Still haven't read all the stuff i got :icon_redface: Too many irons in the fire right now.....

[EngineNine]

I put one one a buddy's jeep a couple of weeks ago. It has a 350 and a carb so it was a lot simple than a FI vehicle. We haven't calculated any fuel mileage yet but it is getting better than before. We had to lean out the carb and pull out some timing after the install.
It runs smoother, quieter and starts easier. Before it would drink gas. around 7-8 mpg. It would burn 1/2 tank going from my house to his and back (about 40 miles both ways). He has done that twice since the install and it is still above 1/2 tank.
I realize that there are a lot of variables involved but first impressions are that is doing as advertised. James

[Gubni]

Keep us updated when you have firm numbers please.

[baldeagle]

Which one did you install? There are so many plans out there

[mikepotts]

sounds like you guys are talking about HHO converters, i have heared good things also. what i really want to make work is an actual water fracturing device like stan meyer's! if you have some time check this out...
http://waterpoweredcar.com/stanmeyer.html

[Denny]

Steve, owner of Madison Auto in Madison, Ind. says he has achieved 42 mpg from his stock Geo Tracker. All I know about his setup is that he has two canisters under the hood.

For EFI, I've read a few articles about the computer ending up dumping more gas into the engine and ending up getting poorer fuel mileage. I guess a person would need to figure out a way to fool the O2 or reprogram the computer.

[Redman_30_06]

I have been doing alot of reading on this lately and I am still not 100% convinced you would see a real big gain on MPG's unless your vehicle was running a little rich to begin with. The reason I say that is becaues the only thing I see it doing is making the fuel burn more completely. Most of the kits that I have seen for an EFI vehicle do something to cut down on how much fuel is going into the motor. Some kits I have seen trick the 02 sensor and some heat the fuel before it goes into the motor. So I think that is where people with EFI are seeing alot of there gains. I think there would be a bigger gain on a carb vehicle than an EFI becaues most of the time a carb vehical isn't running as efficient as it could be and there would be a greater level of tunability (spelling) there. But with all that being said I am building one just to try. I figure if it dosen't work I will only be out about the price of a tank of fuel. Here is the design I am working on. http://smacksboosters.110mb.com/Smack.pdf I have made part of it and ran it off from a battery and it really churns the water. The bubbles of from it make a nice pop when you stick a lighter to them. I'm not saying that this dosen't work I am just not convinced that it will give the gains that alot of people are claiming. Its just like anything else that someone is trying to sell you, its usally not as great as they make it sound.

[Gordon]

........... Its just like anything else that someone is trying to sell you, its usally not as great as they make it sound.

I guess I am just leary, too. If it was THAT good and worthwhile, "big money" would already have it out there to purchase in a ready-to-go manner.

[Redman_30_06]

I guess I am just leary, too. If it was THAT good and worthwhile, "big money" would already have it out there to purchase in a ready-to-go manner.


The other thing that really throws up a red flag to me is, if you go to 5 different sources you will get 5 different story's. I haven't found any of the info to be consistent.

[MudHunter]

Been reading up on this also. My thoughts are that it works...but there is not enough HHO produced by the small canisters under the hood. The HHO is sucked into the engine by the vacum produced by the engine. So...you have to have more availible HHO supply than the engine can suck in to maintain consistanty. Most of the under the hood cannisters use 3/4 of the tank to hold the solution and 1/4 to store. Just seems like the the electrolysis reaction(production) could not keep up with the demand for the HHO the engine vacum called for.


I did see one guy who had custom made a huge tank in is truck. But even then...how long do you have until you use up the stored HHO?

In conclusion I think HHO DOES make an engine obtain better MPG's. Is there an effective method of empleminting the technology (concept) yet...I dont think so.

[EngineNine]

My friends jeep is getting double the mileage than it was. It is up to 16 mpg from 9 mpg.
We put one on his Suzuki sidekick and only gained 5 mpg. went up to 29 from 24. I don't think that we have got it just right yet though. thx James

[Andy's01]

I have a good friend here in town doing these. So far he has done about a dozen and all have reported an increase in MPG. Some were only 4-5 and one called him back and told him that they got an amazing 15 more MPG going to Nashville and back from before. I find that hard to believe and he did to but most are telling him anywhere from 4-10 MPG improvements.

[SurferSami]

Been reading up on this also. My thoughts are that it works...but there is not enough HHO produced by the small canisters under the hood. The HHO is sucked into the engine by the vacum produced by the engine. So...you have to have more availible HHO supply than the engine can suck in to maintain consistanty. Most of the under the hood cannisters use 3/4 of the tank to hold the solution and 1/4 to store. Just seems like the the electrolysis reaction(production) could not keep up with the demand for the HHO the engine vacum called for.


I did see one guy who had custom made a huge tank in is truck. But even then...how long do you have until you use up the stored HHO?

In conclusion I think HHO DOES make an engine obtain better MPG's. Is there an effective method of empleminting the technology (concept) yet...I dont think so.


Don't underestimate small quanities. Water/methanol injection would boost aircraft engine power substantially with a relatively small input. It works by cooling the intake charge, adding a flame accelerant, and raising compression. It is not near as flammable (burns slower) than Hydrogen, that is why most poeple would need to change there timing or they get detination ping with the hydrogen. Feeding in through the vacuum can be effective, it doesn't take much to change the burn characteristics in the cylinders. A carb engine ussually sees more advantage because the paramiters for hydrogen are not added to the computers algorithims of the fuel injected vehicle. It doesn't understand why it is making the power, retarding the timing (knock sensors) and getting a lean reading at the cat conv. By changing the timing, and adding an accelerant in a gaseous form allows you to get a really good burn in the cylinder compared to the "wet" manifold delivery of a carburated engine. Like adding NOS to a carbed motor. The theory is there, and the question really remains to be proven, does the home hydro tank really produce enough to make the difference. With a good high amprage altenator, and a power booster feeding your plates in the tank, I think it is very feasible to have a working system that can produce enough HHO to work. Also, most of the two tank systems are a safety feature. You don't want to feed your engine straight from your reaction tank. If there were a backfire it could get real ugly. The second tank acts like a water trap on a drain to keep bad smeels from backing up into your house. The second tank isolates the HHO storage from the production tank. I wonder why no one has ever vented their battery through a tank to do the same thing? There is a lot of hydrogen gas made while charging your battery. That's why we don't connect the positive jumper cable lead to it. It can spark and light off the gases that may be venting through the caps.

[96 coutry cherokee]

I talk to alot of ppl and I ask them what they drive and what kind of gas milage that they get and what not. Most of the ppl can tell me right off the bat what kind of car they drive but about 95% of these ppl dont know there own MPG. So then I ask them do you know how to find out? I would say 99% of the 95% dont have a clue. They all say no. So when you say that you have reports of 4 to 5 and sometimes 15 MPG improvements I wander how accurate these numbers really are??? :eusa_think::icon_question:

[SurferSami]

I have been getting around 37-39 mpg without the HHO. Diesel it's what's for dinner in my tank!

[scubawinger]

I have the plans for a high tech version of this that should be capable of producing the appropriat amount of reserve so if anyone is interested in helping me put this thing together let me know.