£30-40 quid not hundreds
Boosting MPG with hydrogen (HHO) cell
- Thread starter sludgeguts
- Start date
Currently reading:
Boosting MPG with hydrogen (HHO) cell
£30-40 quid not hundreds
Bargin. Why haven't you got one!? :bang:
i am waiting for more info from they guy on here who says he has done it. i hope he can still find the request in amongst all the thread trashing.
i want to see what happens long term.
i shouldn't need it after tonight though as i am using your advice and going to win the lottery with positive thinking
Last edited:
you really are a moron aren't you!
from what you've said so far you're 100% convinced these things work I wouldn't call a few days 'long term" and for £40 surly its worth the investment for that 70mpg you keep quoting?, it is blatantly apparent that you are still skeptical enough to not want to risk your £40 yet you'll still argue the toss
Are you actually suggesting that fiats highly educated engineers and millions in R&D money, they missed the opportunity to get 70mpg out of a car for the sake of a £40 part? I refer you back to my original statement "you really are a moron aren't you!" :roll eyes: as i've said I don't care if you waste money, I just hope that those with half a brain read all the information and come to an educated decision,
anyway why do you need to win the lottery that nigerian prince who needed your help to transfer his millions to the uk should be back in touch any day now with your cut
OP
OP
so i don't need no magnets. all i have to do is think positive that i will have more mpg then i will get more mpg
Dam, I could've saved myself £10:bang:
Must go now and think that my bent bumper better
OP
OP
I noticed that wasn't said to the person who claimed that engine internals would end up rusting as all that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water.
there's something about hydrogen, oxygen, fuel vapours and a very hot combustion that makes me think there won't be any water in the cylinders - in much the same way that some people seem to run their engines forever with coolant pouring into the pots & steam coming out of the exhaust.
OP
OP
How long have we waited for someone to get up to speed with biodiesel? And it's only in recent years that we've had a 5% mix included at the forecourt.
And what about the companies offering gas conversions for diesels whereby a gas is dribbled into the intake - there are some large hauliers taking advantage of this tech - so why isn't this tech coming in as standard as it would cost pennies to include at the factory?
at room temperature water is liquid, if you freeze it, it becomes solid. if you heat it it becomes a gas as steam and if you heat it under pressure it becomes super heated steam, the one basic fact about all of these is its still water.
iron in the presences of water reacts to form Iron Hydroxide which is the flaky form of rust which kills cars in the uk, where as in places where the climate is hot like california cars get a nice coat of rust as the iron reacts with the oxygen in the air to form iron oxide but unlike iron hydroxide the rust isn't flaky and it protects the metal below preventing further rust. in the presence of heat the reaction is increased so damage will occur faster, and hydrogen burns hotter than petrol so in a hydrogen burning engine any moisture present will cause more damage quicker and contain more water than in a car only burning petrol.
and over time it causes damage other wise why would it be a problem?
over time the real issue is the damage to the piston rings and valve seats, from this corrosion, added to this the hydrogen can already permeate through these in combustion and cause back fires and increased crankcase pressures and temperature, once corroded the problem will increase, you will lose power and the engine will need rebuilding with all new rings and valve seats. this is why all the major manufactures have moved there research away from hydrogen powered internal combustion engines in favour of hydrogen powered fuel cells that produce electricity. you also get more efficiency from the hydrogen used
well the first diesel engines ran on Biodiesel as far back as the 1890s so its not exactly a new invention and we've been adding it to regular diesel fuel since the 1990s so nearly 20years? yep you're right gas injection has been around for a number of years the problems with propane/butane gas is you have to keep it in a pressurised vessel which in an accident has a potential to cause an explosion, petrol is no where near as likely to explode as a gas tank and even without fire the ferocity of a ruptured gas tank is pretty scary.
still some people fit it and see some benefits mostly in improved power and throttle response, what you are asking is why manufactures are not fitting expensive, volatile, space consuming, heavy gas tanks to diesel cars in addition to an already functional and economic car? well ultimately you are still burning a fossil fuel. and the cost savings are not great which is why its only really worth doing for haulage companies who's trucks cover 100,000+ miles a year
Last edited:
i've not but the answer to, if this is scientifically verified is in the post you quoted as above.
you know you have won an Internet argument when people resort to calling you names like they are in a school play ground :slayer:
its impossible to win any argument when the person you are arguing against goes beyond what is logical or reasonable, and clearly doesn't understand what they are arguing about.
You got called names because rather than having a discussion or even an argument if you like, you tried to be funny with sarcasm (which you're not very good at) because you don't actually have anything of value to contribute. In truth moron was s bit harsh and unfair and not fair (I am almost positive you have an IQ above 70) and for calling you a moron I apologise, however; incapable of critical appraisal, irrational and cognitively bias is probably a more accurate description of your attitude and behaviour.
Last edited:
yes exactly like claiming if people think they will get better mpg then they will, that is way beyond what is logical or reasonable
this is sadly true, thats why in research we have scientific bias and in medicine we use placebos we have control groups; double blind studies and peer reviews all to try an eliminate the subconcious influence of the person conducting the study.
in an action where a person drives a car their behaviour will influence the outcome of the experiment.
if i were to drive sludgeguts car with and without magnets for a few months i can guarantee that the results would be the exact opposite of what sludgeguts has found, this is because my subconscious would alter the way in which i drive in the presents and absence of the magnet. the result i don't doubt would be a decrease in fuel economy, yet scientifically speaking there is no way the magnets should influence the fuel economy, so with or without magnets the results should be the same. the results of my experiment would be bias much like the results of sludgeguts experiments are bias by his belief that the magnets improve fuel economy.
this is why modern studies try to remove people and belief from the equation, to conduct a magnet study properly ideally you would run a car on a computer controlled program which would follow a program of speeding up and slowing down on a rolling road to remove wind resistance and road surface changes.
you would then repeat this over and over with and with out magnets in an attempt to give a conclusive answer. you also might try different combinations of magnet or fixture location. once you remove the human influence then you'll get to the truth about if these things work.
that may well work with pills but him subconsciously driving different is very unlikely, other things like different air temperature could alter his results but i doubt very much its all in his mind
the thing is its not just pills it applies to all types of scientific research
Perhaps you should read my posts again, I said uprated alternators used on the ambulances where more efficient, as a result they produced far more power(output) than the standard ones of almost the same size and weight, there's very little increase in the power needed from the engine(input) but large gains in output.
The HHO generator I pictured was just an example, most viable systems I've read about use similar looking devices but use 5 or 6 much larger custom built versions.
When more HHO is needed the more HHO generators are required, hence more efficient alternators are used.
Of course, they have to be seen to be doing something, very disapointing results considering the money they throw at it. But once you realise water as a fuel would put them out of business very quickly you know why the results disapoint. Anyone who thinks they would allow that sort of a device onto the world market is an idiot. If the technology exists, its well hidden from the eyes of people like me and you and will continue to be hidden untill crude oil is pretty much depleted. They earn billions from selling us fuel, they'd be mad to supply us with a device that uses water ..
Last edited:
but you decided to dismissed my input in post 47
and you owe me a quid, because your advice dont work
Last edited:
DucatoMiltonKeynes
Member
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 96
- Points
- 68
I've read many reviews online by motoring magazines, Independent testers, etc online and they pretty much all seem to say that hydrogen/oxygen generators don't make any difference to fuel consumption. There's a very good reason for this. The flow rate of hydrogen needed has to be precise for the engine being used and it's a lot less than is usually recommended. I tried it on my turbodiesel Campervan and here are the results:
The van is a 2 litre Fiat Ducato JTD, converted to a campervan. The conversion, including water tanks, twin leisure batteries, cooker, sink, shower, worktops, seating/bed has added about 400kg to the weight of the van. I ran it in 2012 to Bulgaria and back, using the cruise control at 60mph on motorways, with the occasional burst of 70mph to get past queues of lorries. MPG was 32mpg on motorways and 28mpg going through villages/across the mountain passes/hills/valleys in the countryside. Not bad for something that big and heavy. I used 1:200 two stroke oil in the tank and friction reducer in the engine oil, so maybe a little help from doing that. I measured the mpg from brimmed tankful to brimmed tankful across thousands of miles, so pretty accurate readings.
I picked up a hydrogen dry cell (supposed to be the most efficient type) on ebay for £30, added in a small header tank, splash trap and fed the hydrogen into the air filter. So I could set the current the cell was using and try different settings, I built a controller which can be varied from inside the cab with a digital ammeter readout, so it's very accurate.
I did the same trip this July with maybe a bit more weight in the van, as I was carrying lots of tools and supplies with me. I had read from various sites that I should use 20 amps for the hydrogen cell on my engine, but one site recommended 6 amps, so quite a big difference there. On the trip out to Bulgaria, I used 20 amps. No difference if mpg at all.
I decided to try some lower settings while I was out there, starting at 6 amps (that's about a quarter of a litre a minute of hydrogen, so next to nothing). Every evening, I made the same trip from the nearest town back to where I was staying out in the country, which included turning off a main road and up a very long gentle hill, about a mile long. It was quite a tough climb and fourth gear was needed, even then then engine was working hard. One particular evening, the van flew up the hill in fifth, like another cylinder has been added to the engine. I hadn't been watching the current the cell was using (it drifts a bit with temperature), but I noticed it was 7.2 amps. That was the "magic" figure for my engine. I made more tests on the flat and raising the current to exactly 7.2 amps, you could feel the surge.
I decided to use 7.2 amps all the way back to the UK to see if mpg increased and I wasn't imagining it all. MPG increased from 28mpg to 34 mpg on slow country roads/villages/mountain passes and from 32mpg to 38mpg on motorways, cruising at 60mph. That's 21% increase in the country and about 19% increase on the motorway. So the hydrogen cell basically paid for itself just on the return journey. Next time I do the full 3,000 mile round trip, it should save something like £75 in diesel.
I don't know if anyone knows exactly how it works, but the hydrogen is supposed to make the fuel burn better or more completely. I don't know if it would work for you or if it's something you'd want to try. I won't be disconnecting the one on my campervan, though!
How did you insurance company respond to telling them this? Is it a similar loading to an LPG system
