I've got this idea...

[Bow Tie 67]

After $70 plus to fill last night and some preliminary research.

Bada-Bing!!



http://waterpoweredcar.com/hydrobooster2.html

I'm leaning toward this design. Hydrogen is 130+ octane

[Chewy72ss]

I am seriously considering the HHO electrolysis design. There is an 82 Malibu 6cyl. around for a couple hundred bucks...might have to pick it up as a test car.

I've always dreamed of insane (good insane) gas mileage with an exhaust note!

[bri-rock]

Well, after a tank of gas on my homemade electrolysis (HHO) system, the results are in. I usually get 16 to 18 mpg on my F-150. With the electrolysis system in place I achieved 17.2 mpg.

A few things that could have affected that result:
1. It's been bloody hot in Southern Cal for these past 2 weeks. I've been using the AC more than usual.
2. The surface area of the elecrodes in my system are about half of Tony's buddy's system (stainless allthread versus stainless switch plates).

Besides those things, not sure what else could be the problem. The truck doesn't "feel" any different to me. It's not smoother when accelerating. It doesn't feel more powerful. Oh well, it was worth the trip to Home Depot just to have a go.

Anybody else have first hand experience with these things?

[Chewy72ss]

^Eh. Although those results are somewhat discouraging, I still want to try it!! I want to try a 9-11 plate cell, using 316L stainless plates (about 2"x6" each). Much more surface area, and at around 20amps, should produce a fairly good amount of HHO.

bri-rock, did you use any electrolyzer, such as baking soda or vinegar??

[bri-rock]

I used baking soda.

[68sixspeed]

I'm a total sceptic, but my curiousity is up after talking with 3 people that are experimenting on beater cars/trucks, they are seeing 15-25% gains. Who knows if it has a long term negative, or what you do in the winter in the north, but it is interesting to watch and learn.

[TonyL]

Now mike (the guy here) has added two more bottles and a fuel line heater to his system.

Kinda the antithesis of our usual idea to cool fuel to get more of it in the combustion chamber. the idea here is to use as little as possible and still get a good burn.

There is a LOT of difference in the types of stainless, wire, allthread or plates relative to how much HHO is produced. It's all about surface area.

[dhondagod]

Sanding the surface of the SS improves HHO output as well...

(was going to stay out of this but I too have a friend messing with this)

My buddy wasent getting alot of bubbles untill he did that. No performance reports as of yet as he hasent got it under the hood yet.

His is SS washers from Home Depot... Ill probley build one tomorrow just so I can mess with one of my own and not wait for him


Chris

[Chewy72ss]

Anyone have any ideas on how perferated stainless would perform, rather than solid plate? By the numbers, there is less surface area, but I think the holes would aid in bubble production.

[dhondagod]

A glass/plastic bucket of water, SS plates, some jumper wires and a battery is all you need to find out....


Chris

[4OfaKind]

Found this pic on the net:



Is this all you need in a nutshell or is there more to it than this?

Mal

[TonyL]

whats missing from that image is the control module you'll need to change the air fuel ratio. It's a box that splices into the map sensor and then allows you to lean out your mix.

[bri-rock]

Tony, Isn't leaning out the AF and using the HHO introducing two variables at once? How can we know that the AF ratio change alone didn't effect the mpg? I would invite your friend to disconnect the HHO and use his box for leaning out the mix only to see if the mpg's are the same.

[Chewy72ss]

I'm pretty sure that is where most of the mileage gains come from. Leaning the mixture is (obviously) using less fuel, and the HHO is compensating, or taking the place of the fuel (gasoline in this case) you just leaned out of the mixture. Although, HHO gas is a much more potent fuel, therefore burns more efficiently. There are probably many variables that go with mileage gains. I'm still new at this, and have much to learn. Just my thoughts...

[Jim Nilsen]

I was checking out a video of another invention that was an over-unity power supplier. The engineers went and made a new formula and are working with changes to see if they match the changes with the results. It seems that the over 100 year old formulas are totally wrong. It doesn't matter if it is wind,water,magnetics or solar there are people getting 200% to 700% increases in power output compared to power in.

All of you sceptics out there better get with the new formula or you will be left behind. I saw saltwater on fire all from an accident from an experiment to create a way to kill cancer. It burns more than hot enough to boil water at very low input. I also saw 1.7gal. of water get heated from 100 degrees F to 184 degrees F with a 9 volt battery and a pulse generator that was made for almost nothing in 2min. These are not gimmicks ,they are breakthroughs we can all get free energy from with the right setups.

Just Google up OVERUNITY or OVER UNITY alternative energy and you will get educated into the 21st century. The law of energy conservation is 19th or older and was out of date as soon as people were smart enough not to use it

The brainwashing we have all had from big oil and poor schools has led us into fossil fuel slavery and that is just the way they still want to keep it. They want to keep us divided so we can't unite and have free energy. There is even legislation that prohibits the use of some types of alternative energy that is backed up by old school beliefs that it is inefficient compared to new tech.

I have seen enough and have heard enough to finally free myself from the "it's impossible " mentality and am going to start doing what I can to get all of the free cheap energy out there the same way others are doing it and succeeding. Sometimes all it takes to get hot water is to put the hose in the sun and make use of it but we are too brainwashed to do it . We can build cars but we still don't utilize the power of the wind and the sun

I know some of you will want to argue the point till you die. Just go look for about a week and come back and say that all of the people doing it are wrong. It was an awakening for me as to how much more is out there than I ever knew existed. It also seems that all of the stupidity is here in the U.S. and most of the headway is made outside of the U.S.

[Jim Nilsen]

Anyone have any ideas on how perferated stainless would perform, rather than solid plate? By the numbers, there is less surface area, but I think the holes would aid in bubble production.

There is a Youtube from a guy who used 2 tea strainers that were just wire tied together and the thing just turned into a cloud of gas. With the wire mesh it really had some surface area and less displacement.

[jerome]

It boggles my mind that people believe such garbage.
You may think everyone else out there is stupid, but its the people that believe this kind of horse**** that are getting conned. It's so easy for them to con people, cause people want so bad for something to be a miracle breakthrough that they can themselves use...sadly it's always to profit the originator, leaving these supporters stranded.


Always look for the hidden agenda, whether it's global warming, penis enlargement, perpetual motion, or miracle energy.

People have been conning the needy and uninformed with psuedo-science for a long time. Believing and finding "evidence" in what you want to believe is natural.

PS Brown's Gas to power cars, and pulse electrolysis as miracle fuel sources are both frauds.

[TonyL]

really jerome? despite the fact that I've seen it work myself? Or the fact that the only people who profited from the experiment was the hardware store? He's getting over a 10mpg improvement with three bottles hooked up. How do you explain that? How's there a hidden agenda? who profited the most from it?

/It must be the stainless lightswitch cover makers! That's it!
//It isnt' pseudoscience when it's been proven by method.

[jerome]

This is copied from your friend's youtube:

UPDATE 6/11/08. After installing the map sensor ehancer in vid #2. I have used 1/4 tank exactly and gone 93 miles? If I'm right, these vehicles are set to get around 250 miles average per tank full??? Yes, I looked at the tank under the car, it's squared. 93 miles times 4 quarters of gas = 372 miles... NAH, it can't be that good... I'm only using 1 jar right now. I wonder what 3 jars will do? Let's finish this test first. We'll see... I could be wrong. Stay tuned!
update 6/11/08: O.k., I stand corrected. I was told that over 300 miles (was wrong at 275) on a tank of fuel is about right for this car. Now, I'll be able to sleep tonight. Otherwise, I would have to answer more questions then I would want/need to...
UPDATE 6/14/08: Well, usually I would be at half a tank on fridays. It's about in between 3/4 and half now at 145 miles. But, it could be that I haven't been watching the gauge usages closely till I started this too. So, we'll see.
Updated 6/15/08. I couldn't wait any longer. 181.2 miles divided by 5.94 gals = 30.50 MPG. That's an increase of 4 MPG!!! Now I'm going to add 2 more jars, fuel heater, and xylene to fuel. So it will take several days to rig it up and give you another result.

------------------------------------------------
I assume he filled up, noted his odometer, drove 181.2 miles, and filled up again, noting that he pumped 5.94 gallons.

He did not seem to do a baseline test of his mpg, instead basing his 4mpg increase on either the quoted EPA mpg or an anecdotal 300miles per tank baseline.

Here are the EPA ratings for a 1996 corrola (correct me if i'm completely off on the year): http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/14264.shtml

They quote 29 mpg for combined highway/city driving. Obviously your mileage may vary, and my estimate on the year of his corolla could make things a bit different.

Driving route, temperature (both filling & operating), habits, and acceleration rates added together can affect MPG by at least 4mpg. Turning air conditioning on blows the test, even a properly functioning compressor can affect the mpg by a huge amount.

The shutoff at the tip of the pump can shutoff at a varying levels, not guaranteeing that you actually burned the number of gallons indicated by the pump.

Even under the assumptions that your buddy did everything precisely (not using " I was told that over 300 miles (was wrong at 275) on a tank of fuel is about right for this car" or EPA estimates) using the pump as a gauge for fuel consumed and odometer for miles, you can arrive at imprecise calculated MPG due to driving conditions, small test sample (only 6 gallons), and low measuring accuracy. This is not mentioning the tester having a vested interest in the success of his experiment, possibly subconsciously/consciously altering driving habits, especially when in the mindset of saving gas.

I'm not saying your friend is lying. I'm saying his test is nowhere near "proven by method".

And the agenda? Profit those who push it. water4gas.com, a site you linked earlier profits by selling books for $97. This book deal also includes a "free" plan for a "water car" which runs completely on water. If that doesn't scream scam, I dunno what does.

I feel like I'm getting trolled, but I think that you actually believe this...

I'm not gonna argue on here to prove why electrolysis of water to provide fuel does not give you better gas mileage. Do some research yourself. It's pure snake oil. Electrolysis is high school science. Unfortunately the same people that are dazzled by it did not learn high school science.

Jerome

[paul67]

I heard about this 30+yrs ago by an aircraft engineer working in aus for an airline which tried it but found after long term use they had an increase in corrosion in the engines.This was when the 70s fuel crisis was going on.