# HYDROGEN ASSIST for Petrol or Diesel



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 17, 2015)

I mentioned on another thread that I had Hydrogen Assist fitted and would let you good (and not so good) folk how I got on.
Well long story short, I haven’t been on any decent runs so it’s difficult to tell, but I recon fuel consumption has improved by 20% to 33%  the engine definitely runs smoother and has a notable improvement in torque.  
The Van is a 2001 Roadtrek Versatile 190 on a Dodge RAM 3500 Van base with a 5.2l V8 Petrol engine.


----------



## invalid (Feb 17, 2015)

I presume that you have a Hydrogen on demand system fitted, feeding into your carburettor, the trouble with all these systems is that unless it's on a rolling road there is a vast gap for human error, you expect it to return a better fuel figure so unintentionally you drive better and return a better fuel economy. Quite a lot of your 20% might simply be down to better road conditions, weather, looking ahead for less braking, etc. But if this makes you a better driver and helps give better fuel economy more power to you.
I make my own bio and blend and use octane improvers, works well for me hope you are happy with your results. :cheers:


----------



## Firefox (Feb 17, 2015)

My opinion of them is that they are a complete scam.

I offer 2 clues which come from different angles.

1. The first law of thermodynamics.

2. If they were any good, they would be fitted as standard by manufacturers. Manufacturers spend billions extracting tiny improvements in performance from all kinds of places.  Why are they passing up the chance to improve their models by "20% to 33%" just by adding a simple HHO kit for a £100 of parts?

If you don't believe me read 

Scientific proof debunking the "run your car on water" scams

and

Scientific proof debunking the "run your car on water" scams


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 17, 2015)

Firefox said:


> My opinion of them is that they are a complete scam.
> 
> I offer 2 clues which come from different angles.
> 
> ...



I agree, that to break down water to Hydrogen and Oxygen to run a heat engine would require more energy input than you get out, BUT nobody is suggesting that you "run your car on water", the clue is in the word assist, by adding a small amount of hydrogen to the air entering the engine you improve the burn of your existing fuel, there is a fair bit of Scientific information out there if you care to look.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 17, 2015)

This part about improving efficiency is all covered in great detail in the second link I gave above (it actually looks as though it is the same link but it is to a different section)

Scientific proof debunking the "run your car on water" scams

If still you don't like the science argument, then try the other and ask yourself why no manufacturer today  is fitting £100 worth of parts to get massive improvements for their vehicle and blowing the competition out the water, yet they are spending huge amounts making their vehicles more efficient in other ways.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 17, 2015)

invalid said:


> I presume that you have a Hydrogen on demand system fitted, feeding into your carburettor, the trouble with all these systems is that unless it's on a rolling road there is a vast gap for human error, you expect it to return a better fuel figure so unintentionally you drive better and return a better fuel economy. Quite a lot of your 20% might simply be down to better road conditions, weather, looking ahead for less braking, etc. But if this makes you a better driver and helps give better fuel economy more power to you.
> I make my own bio and blend and use octane improvers, works well for me hope you are happy with your results. :cheers:



I agree with what you say, but from my point of view I knew that it was a thirsty beast before I bought it, so drove back from London with a very very light touch on the throttle (I expected 17 to 20Mpg, so was surprised I only achieved 15mpg) I had intended to put Hydrogen assist on it anyway due to a friend who had it fitted, he didn't notice any improvement to mpg but was very impressed by the extra Torque.
I noticed the extra Torque and how the engine ran smoother immediately, I had parked in the same spot that I had parked in when I had popped in to place an order and arrange fitting, it's an Automatic and I had to reverse out, previously I had to apply throttle to move and was a little jerky,  this time as soon as i took my foot off the brake she began to move and required a much lighter touch on the throttle. (the engine tick-over rpm is controlled by the ECU) 
I have an open mind and have fitted a Scan Gauge 2 to give me a better idea how things are progressing, its early days and need to tune in the device to find the sweet spot.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 17, 2015)

If you have an open mind, you could try this very simple test from the link I gave. Rather than quoting anecdotal evidence about torque and smoothness, this test will be rather more objective. 



> [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]First, make sure you can turn your electrolysis cell off and on while driving - a simple switch at the driving position will do this.[/FONT]Now with the cell turned off, drive at a constant 60mph for a minute or two, so that the engine reaches a steady temperature. Don't use cruise-control, just use your foot to position the gas-pedal so your speed remains constant.
> Without moving your foot (the one on the gas pedal), turn on your electrolysis cell.
> Now if all the claims for HHO are true, your engine will be developing 20%-30% *more* power than it did with the electrolysis cell turned off -- so you should notice your speed increase to around 70-75mph as the HHO gas starts flowing.
> If you don't get this increase, then it's not working.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 17, 2015)

Tell me Firefox, what experience do you have regarding these systems? I had read a lot of the negatives and positives and didn't know what to believe, but noticed the negatives were all theory, and a certain amount of contradiction.
Keeping an open mind I decided to take a punt rather than adding LPG conversion (Much more expensive, plus finding space and carrying around a large heavy tank) If it worked great, if not I would try and get some, if not all my money back.
Regarding your trotted out argument ref Vehicle manufactures, you really need to ask them, but I reckon because it would cause too much hassle and they wouldn't gain any more profit because the majority of their customers,
1 Wouldn't notice any difference.
2 Check the water level on a regular enough basis, or have any understanding on why they should.

Hydrogen assist isn't for everyone, you do need to have some practical skills to get the best out of it.

Perhaps it's not for you, Firefox.


----------



## colinm (Feb 17, 2015)

Some years back a large prize was offered for anyone able to supply and scientifically prove their HHO devise, to my knowledge the prize remains uncollected.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 17, 2015)

ColinD said:


> ...Vehicle manufactures, you really need to ask them, but I reckon because it would cause too much hassle and they wouldn't gain any more profit because the majority of their customers,
> 1 Wouldn't notice any difference.
> 2 Check the water level on a regular enough basis, or have any understanding on why they should...



They wouldn't notice any difference because there is no difference. It is a scam! I'm not sure how I can put it any clearer than that. Are you telling me the general public would be too stupid to notice "20 to 30% improvement" over the unmodified vehicles. 

Perhaps the majority of customers won't have any understanding on checking the oil level or the tyres either :lol-053: May as well not sell cars at all to the general public at all. 

Come on... your arguments are increasingly desperate!

You admit yourself it is too early to tell, you don't have any real data at the moment, and your friend didn't get any improved mpg either. All of your claimed improvements are anecdotal and subjective. Yet you are recommending that a member of this forum also wastes £400 or whatever on one of these devices.

Why don't you undertake the test I described above? Put an on/off switch for your system on the dash. Drive at constant 60 mph. Without altering the position of your foot on the accelerator, switch on the system. You will notice a "20% to 33%" surge in torque as the hydrogen kicks in. Or conversely have your system switched on while you hold at a constant 60 and then switch the system off. You will notice the speed decrease as the benefits are lost.

Or take it on a rolling road and get the performance analysed with the system off and then switched on.


----------



## iampatman (Feb 17, 2015)

I met a guy from South Africa on a Sosta in Italy last year. We got chatting and he told me that he owned a company that had developed a system for adding water to diesel fuel which not only had the benefit of providing cheaper fuel but improved engine performance. He said it wasn't a new idea but his company was the only one that had developed an emulsifying agent that would prevent the two liquids "splitting". Additionally other competitors emulsifiers needed a long and complicated "agitation" process to bind the two liquids wheras his just needed "a bit of shaking up". 
I said that this was a wonderful idea and enquired as to why he wasn't a billionaire and the system in use globally. He replied that the oil companies had a vested interest in opposing the idea so he was trying to market the system to smaller African nations which then started him off on corruption issues which were thwarting him. 
Seemed like a nice enough guy though. 
Pat

Am I still on topic?


----------



## Tony Lee (Feb 17, 2015)

If someone came up with a device that gave even 2% improvement in fuel economy, all the major transport companies would have them fitted in an instant.

Air tabs is one such device. Cheap, passive, easy to fit and last forever, yet major truckers who would stand to save millions each year don't fit them. Why?

Browns Gas, Hyclones, magnetic devices, fuel catalysts and a million other magic devices all have one thing in common. There is only one legitimate claim anyone can make for them and that is they are very efficient at parting gullible people from their money.

Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program | Cars and Light Trucks | US EPA  has a very long list of evaluation reports of fuel savers, many of which make interesting reading
also - 
http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0057-gas-saving-products
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f11036.pdf

etc etc etc

Then if you are still bored and it is raining outside and you have nothing better to do, just google "browns gas fact or scam" and read on.

Another bit of light reading - google "confirmation bias" and you will see that all things might be possible if you believe hard enough


----------



## scottypaul (Feb 17, 2015)

there was a fuel additive in the early 80`s called formula 2000 was sold as an octane booster and fuel saver. one of the oil companies paid big money for it and then it disappeared off the shelves.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 17, 2015)

The development of marketing hydrogen generators in recent time has been intriguing.

There was a huge explosion of after-market kits from 2008 to 2011. When the psuedo-science was blown out the water, and people got no measurable results improving their vehicles, the techno-babble changed from "HHO" to "hydrogen assist". The kit is exactly the same, just different lies and explanations. When all else fails, those who still believe, turn to tales of oil companies or manufacturers suppressing their technology

Some more interesting reading from Nature and Wikipedia:

Burning water and other myths : Nature News

Hydrogen fuel enhancement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## baldybloke (Feb 18, 2015)

If you want to improve the running costs of a petrol engine, get an log kit installed, no improvement on mpg, but a massive saving on running costs (and less money for the politicians biscuit fund)


----------



## ricc (Feb 18, 2015)

hi colin

how long have you owned this vehicle

how many miles have you driven itbefore fitting the kit.

how long have you had this kit fitted?

how many miles have you done since fitting?


----------



## piman (Feb 18, 2015)

Hello David, 

the pellets you refer to were introduced around the time when leaded petrol was being phased out. They, too, were a scam.
Your friend's Land Rover would have done many thousands of miles without detriment to the valve seats because the seats had a coating from the tetra ethyl lead in leaded petrol which continued to protect them, as does keeping an engine below 3,000 rpm or so (The average Land Rover would typically be driven at moderate rpm). Even without lead memory, unless an engine is driven hard and at higher rpm unleaded does not generally cause valve seat erosion despite the horror tales.

Alec


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 18, 2015)

My my, we do have the nay Sayers coming out of the woodwork, anyone would think I am trying to sell these kits.
 I have reported what I personally have found, if that upsets some of you, tough.
If it's a placebo effect that's still great because on my last run I achieved a saving of between 20% to 33% and that was up and our Devon hills.

Now tell me this, if it is such a big scam how come the company is still in business, has been for quite a number of years, telephone number and full address freely available and if you put their name into Google you even get a map showing you where they are, hardly the actions of a snake oil Co.
They are also expanding!

http://www.hydrogenhybrids.uk.com/contact-us/


----------



## ChrisInNotts (Feb 18, 2015)

ColinD said:


> My my, we do have the nay Sayers coming out of the woodwork, anyone would think I am trying to sell these kits.
> I have reported what I personally have found, if that upsets some of you, tough.
> If it's a placebo effect that's still great because on my last run I achieved a saving of between 20% to 33% and that was up and our Devon hills.
> 
> ...



Trouble is you have come on a public forum with claims that it works and no evidence apart from a quoted saving.    Lets see your numbers and how you arrived at them.  

Keith


----------



## Fazerloz (Feb 18, 2015)

Are you happy with the roadtrek Colin. Is there anything about it you don't like or would change. I am still looking for one. :wave:


----------



## invalid (Feb 18, 2015)

Don't forget that some of the benefits may not relate to economy, they could be cleaner burn, cleaner exhaust emissions, and better idling tick over. I studied thermodynamics and advanced maths at university at the end of the 60’s to truly quantify everything  is very difficult, unless you have a lab, weight of batteries extra power consumption from alternator etc, Many years ago I built a hydrogen producer, great to blow up and explode balloons, and I know some truck companies believe in the technology.  To be fair I don’t think the maths stack up, but you are right, if you feel it’s working for you great, ignore us and enjoy yourself and post figures if you can, I’m afraid that as we get older being cynical is all were left with. :cheers:


----------



## ChrisInNotts (Feb 18, 2015)

invalid said:


> Don't forget that some of the benefits may not relate to economy, they could be cleaner burn, cleaner exhaust emissions, and better idling tick over. I studied thermodynamics and advanced maths at university at the end of the 60’s to truly quantify everything  is very difficult, unless you have a lab, weight of batteries extra power consumption from alternator etc, Many years ago I built a hydrogen producer, great to blow up and explode balloons, and I know some truck companies believe in the technology.  To be fair I don’t think the maths stack up, but you are right, if you feel it’s working for you great, ignore us and enjoy yourself and post figures if you can, I’m afraid that as we get older being cynical is all were left with. :cheers:



The trouble is that it is encouraging the technology if such claims are not challenged.  At the end of the day the electrical energy required to split the water to generate the hydrogen must come from the fuel being burnt.  Thus, the only potential way this could work is, as you say, by increasing efficiency of the fuel burn.  I am fully aware that water injection etc can have effects to improve efficiency and/or power.  However a claim of a 22-30 % increase in efficiency of an engine is a staggering increase.  Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence......

Keith


----------



## Tezza (Feb 18, 2015)

I think it's the same with every device....you have solar panels?   I cAn post you a million links to show how really useless they are. You have a sterling b2b charger? I will post you millions of links from people who say their useless. Had a an engine remap? There are doubters for that too. You pays your money and takes your chance. If somebody says he has seen an improvement and has no affiliation to the company why should I doubt that. I want a bit more torque if I get a couple of mpg more that's a bonus.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 18, 2015)

Well, if and when you have it fitted, try the test described above.

Drive it at a constant 60mph with the unit switched off. Without altering the position of your foot on the pedal, switch on the unit and watch it zoom up to 70mph as the additional torque surges in!


----------



## Tezza (Feb 18, 2015)

I will tell you honestly what I see that's different. I think that test is not quite scientific.. So...do you have solar panels...or had a remap? Maybe you buy premium diesel ? Perhaps you got Camper tyres on? Do you use elsan liquid in your WC. 
I had a remap on the old van.....but if I did the test that you mention there would have been no difference..but I could pull wheel spins in first gear....it caused the clutch to slip....even a brand new one. And was saving on average 3 mpg this was over 25k miles. £150 well spent.
so you have posted a few links. Pepsi seem to think it works...go check that link out. And a lot more transport companies. And 20 years ago they said electric cars were unfeasable....guess what?
So you don't believe....that's fine. I have an open mind so will give it a try.


----------



## izwozral (Feb 18, 2015)

Tezza said:


> I will tell you honestly what I see that's different. I think that test is not quite scientific.. So...do you have solar panels...or had a remap? Maybe you buy premium diesel ? Perhaps you got Camper tyres on? Do you use elsan liquid in your WC.
> I had a remap on the old van.....but if I did the test that you mention there would have been no difference..but I could pull wheel spins in first gear....it caused the clutch to slip....even a brand new one. And was saving on average 3 mpg this was over 25k miles. £150 well spent.
> so you have posted a few links. Pepsi seem to think it works...go check that link out. And a lot more transport companies. And 20 years ago they said electric cars were unfeasable....guess what?
> So you don't believe....that's fine. I have an open mind so will give it a try.



I for one will be interested Tez. I have had a re-map & there is definitely more torque & more mpg. Anything that gives me more for my bucks, I am interested in. Please let us know how you get on.


----------



## Tezza (Feb 18, 2015)

Just read this...and this guy isn't trying to sell anything if you read down he uses the same sort of system.
Motorhead Messiah | Fast Company | Business + Innovation


----------



## Firefox (Feb 18, 2015)

I don't have a problem with hydrogen in the form of hydrogen tanks which can be refilled with hydrogen imported to the system. I think this is the future. But I do have a problem with trying to extract tiny amounts of hydrogen in an on-board process using the alternator and power from the engine.

People seem to quote "hydrogen" as a universal cure-all, without worrying about where the hydrogen is coming from.

Edit: By the way. No hard feelings, it's nothing personal. I do have an Engineering Degree which included a Thermodynamics module, and have made a long study on HHO and alternative energy devices as well as their marketing on the net. I also have an interest in protecting people from scams, so I can only state it as I see it.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 20, 2015)

ricc said:


> hi colin
> 
> how long have you owned this vehicle
> 
> ...



Sorry not to have replied earlier, I am very slow at typing and depending on my joints I can get even slower..

I purchased the vehicle in Sept, I filled up in Horsham and travelled down to Torbay via a few diversions (After midnight) due to roadwork’s, I filled up again next day having travelled 381 km and used 72 litres =15mpg

I went up to Exeter to see someone, straight there and back 13mpg. 84 km

I had the kit fitted at the end of Sept but just did short runs to Torquay and back (Very thirsty (as low as 4mpg) until temps up, needs to be 190+F but does warm up fairly quickly, about 3miles, if it’s cold and I turn the beast around on my drive it will most probably drink 1or 2 litres. 

I purchased and fitted a Scan Guage2 and now monitor litres per mile instant, and litres per mile average.

The Co I purchased the HHO kit from is just up the road (about 3miles) they also guarantee a saving but you do need to work with them to fine tune things.

Hope this helps.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 20, 2015)

ChrisInNotts said:


> Trouble is you have come on a public forum with claims that it works and no evidence apart from a quoted saving.    Lets see your numbers and how you arrived at them.
> 
> Keith



See my reply to ricc..


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 20, 2015)

Fazerloz said:


> Are you happy with the roadtrek Colin. Is there anything about it you don't like or would change. I am still looking for one. :wave:



I am pleased with the wagon apart from being a fuleholic, mine is on a Dodge RAM 3500 base, whether the Chevy is better I don't know.
 I haven't managed to get away in it yet.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 20, 2015)

ChrisInNotts said:


> The trouble is that it is encouraging the technology if such claims are not challenged.  At the end of the day the electrical energy required to split the water to generate the hydrogen must come from the fuel being burnt.  Thus, the only potential way this could work is, as you say, by increasing efficiency of the fuel burn.  I am fully aware that water injection etc can have effects to improve efficiency and/or power.  However a claim of a 22-30 % increase in efficiency of an engine is a staggering increase.  Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence......
> 
> Keith



Until I can do a decent run up the motorway, dual carriage way and moniter mileage and fuel used its difficult to give exact figures, also the weather plays a part, my driving could be more economy aware,but not to the improvements I am seeing, also my driving wouldn't improve the Torque that I noticed immediately.
If I had found no improvement I would have said so, out of interest I am running with the cell (Truck cell) drawing 7.5Amps at the moment, but will adjust to try and fine tune.   :drive:


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 20, 2015)

Firefox said:


> I don't have a problem with hydrogen in the form of hydrogen tanks which can be refilled with hydrogen imported to the system. I think this is the future. But I do have a problem with trying to extract tiny amounts of hydrogen in an on-board process using the alternator and power from the engine.
> 
> People seem to quote "hydrogen" as a universal cure-all, without worrying about where the hydrogen is coming from.
> 
> Edit: By the way. No hard feelings, it's nothing personal. I do have an Engineering Degree which included a Thermodynamics module, and have made a long study on HHO and alternative energy devices as well as their marketing on the net. I also have an interest in protecting people from scams, so I can only state it as I see it.



I agree, there is a lot of scams out there, and they don't stay around long, try getting hold of them a year later? 
These guys who developed the system are freely available with full address, telephone No's and map how to find them, they have also been there a few years now, it will be interesting how Tezza gets on, I'm sure he will be a happy bunny. :rabbit:

I am surprised at your earlier post regarding that rubbish about keeping your foot still on the throttle and switching off or on the unit, as someone with an Engineering Degree Etc I would expect you to see where it falls down,

A little story, back in the 70's I was working in the R&D section of a co making flux cored welding wires, one of my duties was mixing the test formulas and making a small batch of the wire, then running test welds, the formulas had various codes, vertical up wires usually started with a V, I had a V code formula come down for 1/8dia wire, and I welded vertically up not bad but not brilliant, I put that down to my lack of experience, the boss rang from head office to find out how the test had gone, when I said fine but v/up is a bit difficult but I reckon an experienced welder would be fine, he asked me why I was testing v/up, I said because it had a V code, 2hrs later (that's how long it took to drive from head office) the chairman and metallurgist walked in wanting to look at what I had done (apparently up until then welding V/up with 1/8 wire was impossible, but nobody had told me) they then developed a 1/8 V/up flux cored wire.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 21, 2015)

All these different HHO schemes are basically the same construction. You use current from the engine to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water.

 At the start they claimed the alternator was spinning freely anyway and therefore it was "free" electricity. That was quickly dismissed, so they turned to other "explanations".

30% fuel savings are frequently claimed. At such huge levels it shouldn't make a big difference as to the construction of the kit. You will surely see some saving regardless of the manufacturer of the kit. The fact is that no savings have been properly verified on any kit.

Instead of trying to prove efficiency yourself, take the vehicle on a rolling road. Conduct before and after tests and get everything scientifically measured. Nobody has ever done this successfully with an HHO kit. They all rely on anecdotal observations or home-made fuel tests. Take it on a rolling road, publish power and fuel data, and you will be the first!


----------



## Tbear (Feb 21, 2015)

Complete layman here but can I just point out a bit of schoolboy science. Hydrogen burns in air. Mix Hydrogen with air and burning it is called exploding a bomb, which is why I think we are not driving Hydrogen powered cars. May not be a good idea to try and do a DIY kit if anyone is thinking of it. 

Richard


----------



## ricc (Feb 21, 2015)

im also a graduate engineer

whilst i can accept anecdotal claims of improved torque, smoother running or improved drivability i would question the 30 % decrease in fuel consuption , in this case there just isnt enough reliable data on the pre installation fuel consumption.    if the op had driven the vehicle several thousands of miles over a period of months or years with varing loads and weather and had a well established mpg to make comparisons with it would make any improvement  claims a lot more credible.

i usually fill to pump cut off at every refuelling and work out mpg for evey tank full from the trip recorder.
over the years it gives an insight of how usage affect the figures,   even then theres no gaurentee that im filling to the same foint every time so you can only average the figure over several tank fills.....fills from near empty rather than top ups of a gallon or two  give more accurate figures  cos the effect of a pint or two variation in the full level is less on the larger quantity..


instant reading mpg meters have  to be used with care to get any meaningful results.


having said all that, with a petrol powered beast anything that gives a hope of more economy has to be worth investigation.


----------



## K9d (Feb 21, 2015)

Tbear said:


> Complete layman here but can I just point out a bit of schoolboy science. Hydrogen burns in air. Mix Hydrogen with air and burning it is called exploding a bomb, which is why I think we are not driving Hydrogen powered cars. May not be a good idea to try and do a DIY kit if anyone is thinking of it.
> 
> Richard



An ICE is a series of "bombs" detonating to make power, if that bomb is power by petrol or Hydrogen makes no difference its still an explosion, Hydrogen powered cars are more than viable its just finding a way of extracting the Hydrogen that is the stumbling block. As for HHO systems, physics tells us you can't create energy only convert it from one form to another, this to me is where the claims for the system falls down.


----------



## maingate (Feb 21, 2015)

Tbear said:


> Complete layman here but can I just point out a bit of schoolboy science. Hydrogen burns in air. Mix Hydrogen with air and burning it is called exploding a bomb, which is why I think we are not driving Hydrogen powered cars. May not be a good idea to try and do a DIY kit if anyone is thinking of it.
> 
> Richard



To be more accurate, Hydrogen spontaneously combusts in Air above a relatively low temperature. I found this a bit unnerving at first when working on Hydrogen lines on the Sasol refineries in South Africa. :scared:


----------



## Tbear (Feb 21, 2015)

K9d said:


> An ICE is a series of "bombs" detonating to make power, if that bomb is power by petrol or Hydrogen makes no difference its still an explosion, Hydrogen powered cars are more than viable its just finding a way of extracting the Hydrogen that is the stumbling block. As for HHO systems, physics tells us you can't create energy only convert it from one form to another, this to me is where the claims for the system falls down.



I get the ICE idea. Hydrogen production is no problem but the cost of doing so, I have no idea. Not sure of calorific values of Hydrogen verses Petrol. Their is also the plus point that the byproduct of burning H is H2O but my problem is storing Large amounts of hydrogen under pressure. I believe its a bit more dangerous than butane but I,m up for being educated.

Richard


----------



## Tbear (Feb 21, 2015)

Nerd 

Richard


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

Firefox said:


> All these different HHO schemes are basically the same construction. You use current from the engine to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water.
> 
> At the start they claimed the alternator was spinning freely anyway and therefore it was "free" electricity. That was quickly dismissed, so they turned to other "explanations".
> 
> ...



My, you do have a bee in your bonnet over this, first of all the solution is an electrolyte, not plain water,  and just like a lead acid battery you top up with water (when a battery gasses, that is hydrogen due to the cracking of the water, the acid isn't depleted ) all I am doing is reporting as I find with the tools and methods I have at my disposal, to find a rolling road to take my lump GVWR 3955kg wouldn't be easy, not to mention the cost (buy a lot of fuel) but if you can find me one and are prepared to pay for it, I would be more than happy to have it tested. (would make the fine tuning a lot simpler also)


----------



## Tezza (Feb 21, 2015)

http://www.eagle-research.com/erpdf/fs/HyZor/HyZorProofs/HyZorProofs110316.pdf


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

K9d said:


> An ICE is a series of "bombs" detonating to make power, if that bomb is power by petrol or Hydrogen makes no difference its still an explosion, Hydrogen powered cars are more than viable its just finding a way of extracting the Hydrogen that is the stumbling block. As for HHO systems, physics tells us you can't create energy only convert it from one form to another, this to me is where the claims for the system falls down.



Tell me, where has anyone claimed, suggested, or hinted to CREATING energy.
What is being achieved is the cracking of a small amount of water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, the small amount of gas is fed into the air intake, this in turn improves the efficiency of your existing fuel burn hence "Hydrogen Assist".
Extracting Hydrogen isn't the stumbling block, it is the amount of energy input V energy output that is the problem.


----------



## Tony Lee (Feb 21, 2015)

In practical situation, because of the large difference on specific gravity of the three gases mentioned, assuming the figure is kg of gas at STP, the kJ/kg figures aren't all that useful.

Adding diesel and petrol into the discussion really suggests that kJ/Litre of liquid might be a useful comparison since they are all liquids as we fill the tank. (And we buy those four fuels by the litre, not by the kg) With hydrogen, since it is never a liquid, perhaps we could use kJ/Litre of volume of the tank with the contents at 3000psi (or whatever it is) but realising that the contents are not actually a liquid.

Or perhaps even better, kJ/$


----------



## K9d (Feb 21, 2015)

ColinD said:


> Tell me, where has anyone claimed, suggested, or hinted to CREATING energy.
> What is being achieved is the cracking of a small amount of water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, the small amount of gas is fed into the air intake, this in turn improves the efficiency of your existing fuel burn hence "Hydrogen Assist".
> Extracting Hydrogen isn't the stumbling block, it is the amount of energy input V energy output that is the problem.



I think your misinterpreting my post, my point about producing Hydrogen is on a commercial scale, not the chemistry set under your bonnet.
As for the CREATING energy bit, it seems your a bit sensitive, I wasn't referring to your system I talking basic physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. So I suggest you climb off your soapbox and realise not everything is about you.


----------



## ricc (Feb 21, 2015)

is nobody looking at hydrogen as a replacement for heavy battery powered electric cars?

surely instead of lugging heavy batteries arround and recharging it would make more sense to use the leccy that you would use to charge the batteries to make hydrogen to run an ic engne on.

we could all have a hydrogen plant in the garage powered by self generted solar or wind leccy.....free,  carbon free  motoring, and you could have a network of hydrogen refueling points for people who couldnt make their own or run out  a long way from home..
the ability to tank store hydrogen gets arround the variability in the leccy supply with the weather.

how big a garage roof would i need to produce solar power to produce hydrogen to run a medium sized  car for say a hundred mles a week.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

K9d said:


> I think your misinterpreting my post, my point about producing Hydrogen is on a commercial scale, not the chemistry set under your bonnet.
> As for the CREATING energy bit, it seems your a bit sensitive, I wasn't referring to your system I talking basic physics, energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. So I suggest you climb off your soapbox and realise not everything is about you.



Forgive me for my misunderstanding from the extract below, as this thread is about these systems in vehicles I thought we were talking about the same thing.



K9d said:


> As for HHO systems, physics tells us you can't create energy only convert it from one form to another, this to me is where the claims for the system falls down.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

I think the cost involved would outweigh any benefits, also wasn't there a thread recently about the problems with diesels regarding emissions.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

Tezza said:


> http://www.eagle-research.com/erpdf/fs/HyZor/HyZorProofs/HyZorProofs110316.pdf



Thank you for finding that, very interesting reading.


----------



## Tezza (Feb 21, 2015)

Mad inventors and scientists...hmmmm
Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated


----------



## K9d (Feb 21, 2015)

Tezza said:


> Mad inventors and scientists...hmmmm
> Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated



So you chose to ignore the bit that said "While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem" then.


----------



## Tezza (Feb 21, 2015)

lol...no i didnt i CHOSE to read it all and CHOSE to have an open mind. MY choice....your choice not to believe. No physics degree needed here. I asked on this forum for suggestions of how i could get more ommphh. A person very kindly told me of this option that works for him. What do you want me to do...call him a liar? ask for pages of data and rolling road reports?.The gentleman was trying to help me with no financial gain to himself. The mpg figures dont bother me as I wont be able to do a test as i have just bought the van.So the purpose of this was to give it more grunt. If it works.....great...if not....then back to the drawing board.Its really not a problem.
Ohhh and i wont be driving off the edge of the world either


----------



## Tezza (Feb 21, 2015)

K9d said:


> So you chose to ignore the bit that said "While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem" then.


You cant clip a bit of a quote and make it fit your beliefs...here is what was actually written includin what you chose to ignoe
"
While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we'll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful_hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered. "_


----------



## K9d (Feb 21, 2015)

Tezza said:


> You cant clip a bit of a quote and make it fit your beliefs...here is what was actually written includin what you chose to ignoe
> "
> While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we'll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful_hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered. "_



I'd like to see you as a dog with a bone, but unfortunately the image I have is a baby with a rattle.

I don't care in the slightest if you want to spend your money on snake oil, maybe the placebo effect will be worth it for you.
As for quoting what suit my needs, surely you did that first by quoting the article but ignoring the bits you didn't like, i.e. 99% is rubbish.
I suggest you spend less time getting your knickers in a twist all the time and a bit more time learning the basics of the English language and spelling.


----------



## izwozral (Feb 21, 2015)

This thread is getting a tad nasty.

Deep breaths boys.:fun::fun::fun:


----------



## Tezza (Feb 21, 2015)

here we go again...lose an argument so start attacking the person. Its ok for you to have a view?...but not me? and if im a child with a rattle....then your the one who has thrown his out and having a tantrum. Never attacked you or called you a name or got personal. But hey ho....guss waat. your totally insignicant in my life. And do i care about spelling????hmm let me think...if being able to spell makes me like you....well i know who i would rather be.


----------



## trevskoda (Feb 21, 2015)

Tbear said:


> Complete layman here but can I just point out a bit of schoolboy science. Hydrogen burns in air. Mix Hydrogen with air and burning it is called exploding a bomb, which is why I think we are not driving Hydrogen powered cars. May not be a good idea to try and do a DIY kit if anyone is thinking of it.
> 
> Richard



so is petrol.


----------



## K9d (Feb 21, 2015)

I wasn't aware there was even an argument, but if there is its not relevant to this thread, so I will leave you to your snake oil and hope you enjoy the benefits.


----------



## Tezza (Feb 21, 2015)

Thank you


----------



## trevskoda (Feb 21, 2015)

i was happy reading this thread untill fight night begain,but as a self tought fitter engineer grease monkey etc i have seen all these before with wild claims stp  redex fuel line magnets <tried on spitfires> pellets in tanks slick 50 molyslip and the list goes on , most tested in labs and not one worked nor have i got any to work. It takes a mind blowing amount of energy extracted from mother earth in all forms just to get any vech car van bus etc to tramp the earth,and if i ever find one that works i will be posting from a much hotter climate than my b-ll freezing bone shaking teath chatering workshop. :wave:


----------



## Tbear (Feb 21, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> so is petrol.



I am sure that you know that some bombs are better than others. Hydrogen makes a very good one 

Richard


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

I prefer to keep an open mind until proved one way or the other, I take it Winty and K9d you have experience of the de verde units, as you speak with such authority...:drive:


----------



## invalid (Feb 21, 2015)

I think we should live and let live, those of us with a scientific and /or engineering background can argue till were blue in the face, and produce facts that prove we know what we are talking about. I have found on numerous occasions using logic, the truth, and facts don’t work, take religion, you can argue till your blue in the face with someone about any God, and they will always come back saying “ye of little faith.” That’s the whole point, some people will believe without any proof of anything, where some of us who demand facts, but their belief is as unshakable as ours, best to just live and let live. :heart:


----------



## trevskoda (Feb 21, 2015)

Tbear said:


> I am sure that you know that some bombs are better than others. Hydrogen makes a very good one
> 
> Richard



yes richard my wife has just belted me as i have just droped a big one.:scared:


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> i was happy reading this thread untill fight night begain,but as a self tought fitter engineer grease monkey etc i have seen all these before with wild claims stp  redex fuel line magnets <tried on spitfires> pellets in tanks slick 50 molyslip and the list goes on , most tested in labs and not one worked nor have i got any to work. It takes a mind blowing amount of energy extracted from mother earth in all forms just to get any vech car van bus etc to tramp the earth,and if i ever find one that works i will be posting from a much hotter climate than my b-ll freezing bone shaking teath chatering workshop. :wave:



Perhaps you could do with a little Hydrogen to warm the place up.


----------



## trevskoda (Feb 21, 2015)

ColinD said:


> Perhaps you could do with a little Hydrogen to warm the place up.



30% improvement hopefully.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

invalid said:


> I think we should live and let live, those of us with a scientific and /or engineering background can argue till were blue in the face, and produce facts that prove we know what we are talking about. I have found on numerous occasions using logic, the truth, and facts don’t work, take religion, you can argue till your blue in the face with someone about any God, and they will always come back saying “ye of little faith.” That’s the whole point, some people will believe without any proof of anything, where some of us who demand facts, but their belief is as unshakable as ours, best to just live and let live. :heart:



I have an engineering background with an inquiring mind and skeptical to boot, it's still early days and only reporting my observations so far, maybe, if you're interested, I can pop up to the moors sometime and you can see and try for yourself.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 21, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> 30% improvement hopefully.



Just stopping those "teath chatering" would be a result, judging by your piccy at the top, they could do a lot of unintentional damage..  :lol-061:


----------



## Fazerloz (Feb 21, 2015)

invalid said:


> I think we should live and let live, those of us with a scientific and /or engineering background can argue till were blue in the face, and produce facts that prove we know what we are talking about. I have found on numerous occasions using logic, the truth, and facts don’t work, take religion, you can argue till your blue in the face with someone about any God, and they will always come back saying “ye of little faith.” That’s the whole point, some people will believe without any proof of anything, where some of us who demand facts, but their belief is as unshakable as ours, best to just live and let live. :heart:



Can you show me a proven fact then that there is no god if you base everything on proven facts. No I don't believe in god but there again I don't disbelieve in god.  :cheers:


----------



## Tbear (Feb 21, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> yes richard my wife has just belted me as i have just droped a big one.:scared:



Do you get a Spanking every Saturday Night. 

Richard


Sorry for the digression but this thread needs a bit of humour


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 22, 2015)

I have read through your posts again and owe you an apology. I though you had dismissed Hydrogen Assist out of hand as some others had, even though you don't take it seriously you come across as a fence sitter, neither for or against.
I too have looked at various methods in the past to improve torque and mpg, but came to the conclusion early on that they didn't stack up, back in the early 60's I built a CD ign system which worked well apart from the odd component failure. Looking at the de verde system and talking to them I though it worth a gamble, I did tell them that if it proved to be a crock of shite I would say so, I also told them I was on this forum and tell it as I found it, I didn't intend to comment until I had more miles and better data to comment on, it was only Tezza looking for more Torque, as I had noticed the improvement in torque immediately I though it only fair to mention HA and let him make up his own mind. (so you see, it's all Tezzas fault. :hammer


----------



## Firefox (Feb 22, 2015)

If it is a "crock of shite" to quote you, are de Verde going to give you a refund, if it does not give you 30% increase mpg?

That would seem fair to me. If they are not a scam outfit, they will surely offer a money back guarantee?


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 22, 2015)

Firefox said:


> If it is a "crock of shite" to quote you, are de Verde going to give you a refund, if it does not give you 30% increase mpg?
> 
> That would seem fair to me. If they are not a scam outfit, they will surely offer a money back guarantee?



Yes they do give a give a money back guarantee, I think it was 20% increase mpg, at the moment I am very happy with the results I am getting and it is definitely *NOT* a "crock of shite"


----------



## Tezza (Feb 22, 2015)

so you see, it's all Tezzas fault. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)​



Ohhhhh I get the blame for everything......if the cat has kittens it's my fault :rolleyes2:


----------



## Tbear (Feb 22, 2015)

Tezza said:


> so you see, it's all Tezzas fault.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So we all agree on something! New it would happen one day 

Richard


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

Point taken...here is the same technology
PepsiCo Canada Energy | PepsiCo.ca


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

Yes you did misread it "Seven Hydrogen Assist Transport Tractors " which is exactly the title of this thread and the technology we are talking about. Keep up david


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

Hydrogen assist is fuel cell technology according to every place on the net. Your wrong man...admit it for once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

Yes keep up with me...you so slow in learning....go to the back of the class


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

Tezza said:


> Hydrogen assist is fuel cell technology according to every place on the net. Your wrong man...admit it for once.
> Fuel cell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



At what point in your Hydrogen assist system is the Hydrogen combined with Oxygen to produce electricity ?


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

Article:Hydrogen-Assist Fuel Cell Warning from Former Installer - PESWiki
read the title... clear now? God help us. when its in black and white people will still argue. Your problem not mine


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

K9d said:


> At what point in your Hydrogen assist system is the Hydrogen combined with Oxygen to produce electricity ?


why are you asking that....i am reading everywhere that hydrogen assist is fuel cell technology...ok? so you are scientist and you are telling me otherwise. ok I will believe a scientist and bow to all your qualifications. Sorry i got it wrong
http://bwt.jeffotto.com/hydro-assist-fuel-cell.htm
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:HAFC_Hydro_Assist_Fuel_Cell


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

Tezza said:


> why are you asking that....i am reading everywhere that hydrogen assist is fuel cell technology...ok? so you are scientist and you are telling me otherwise. ok I will believe a scientist and bow to all your qualifications. Sorry i got it wrong



Your a very strange person, do you see everything as an argument ?
I was only asking a question.

P.S. You full stop key still seems to be sticking.


----------



## Tbear (Feb 27, 2015)

Hi Tezza

Take a deep breath, calm down and then go back to the beginning and start again. You will see that David is trying to help you.

Richard


----------



## Norm De Plume (Feb 27, 2015)

It's simple - a fuel cell uses hydrogen to create electricity. 

The name HAFC is marketing and the hydrogen generator looks to be the opposite of a fuel cell because it uses electricity to make hydrogen.

They'll be saying next that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is actually a democracy (because it says so in the name).


----------



## izwozral (Feb 27, 2015)

In the blue corner we have 'Wack 'Em Dead Winton'.

In the red corner we have "The Terror of Weymouth, The Titan Thumper, Tezzaaaaaaaaaaaa'.

Lets get ready to RUUMMMMMMMMMMBBBBBBBBBBBLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

Judging by what you said  i wouldnt really expect you to know about the NHS UNions Teachers The poor Drug rehailitation  Mechanics  floods ,, terrorism , religion,  but dont feel bad about .We all have our limitations david as you know.  Now your physicst....your totally wasted on you ride on mower. Im sure camerwrong can find you place in the cabinet with all the others who are not qualified.


----------



## Tezza (Feb 27, 2015)

OK...batting a head against a wall here. And you lot call me a keyboard warrior.lol  I put links on from reputable sources and then im referred to goverments in korea. Well thats ok...again im getting it wrong and your arguement must stand because of Korea?And not one of you has a qualification not one of you has studided the subject and not one of you bar Colin has the device. Take time out here and have a little think.....
"how am i qualified to make judgement on this....Have i tested it?....no....have i used one?....no....have i spoken to somebody that has one.....yes...colin has...and his reports you say are what?....lies?.I have one...cant say about the fuel as i said as i have nothing to compare too. But torque...it does what it says it does...i have more torque. So...am i liar? I couldnt care less what you think. I am grateful for Colin to pointing me in the right direction. I am also grateful to all the other people who suggested different aproaches to my problem. The haters...well carry on and disbelieve. Time will tell. Im outta this convo


----------



## sparrks (Feb 27, 2015)

Hyper or what! :scared:


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

Norm De Plume said:


> It's simple - a fuel cell uses hydrogen to create electricity.
> 
> The name HAFC is marketing and the hydrogen generator looks to be the opposite of a fuel cell because it uses electricity to make hydrogen.



Tezza perhaps you should read this again and try really, really hard to understand what's being said.

Now I realise you won't be able to see this but I'm not arguing with you I'm just trying to help you.

Your system is the complete opposite of a fuel cell, I'm not "hatting" your system although I'm dubious as to some of its claims, but that's down to basic physics that says you can't get more energy out than you put it, unless of course your system is splitting the atoms.


----------



## Norm De Plume (Feb 27, 2015)

Tezza said:


> OK...batting a head against a wall here. And you lot call me a keyboard warrior.lol  I put links on from reputable sources and then im referred to goverments in korea. Well thats ok...again im getting it wrong and your arguement must stand because of Korea?And not one of you has a qualification not one of you has studided the subject and not one of you bar Colin has the device. Take time out here and have a little think.....
> "how am i qualified to make judgement on this....Have i tested it?....no....have i used one?....no....have i spoken to somebody that has one.....yes...colin has...and his reports you say are what?....lies?.I have one...cant say about the fuel as i said as i have nothing to compare too. But torque...it does what it says it does...i have more torque. So...am i liar? I couldnt care less what you think. I am grateful for Colin to pointing me in the right direction. I am also grateful to all the other people who suggested different aproaches to my problem. The haters...well carry on and disbelieve. Time will tell. Im outta this convo



All I said was that it's not a fuel cell - it's marketing and marketers do that. Just because someone calls it a fuel cell and sells a product doesn't make it a fuel cell. I only mentioned Korea as an example - they call it democratic when it's the opposite, the same as the Democratic Republic of Congo probably wasn't either. 

One thing that I am curious about with this technology and that doesn't seem to have been mentioned, is whether the injection of hydrogen could actually change the characteristics of the burn, in the same way that a catalyst can change a chemical reaction. Yes, I'm skeptical about HA because I'm not sure how much more efficient internal combustion engines can get, given the laws of thermodynamics, but I would welcome evidence that shows it does work.

So to sum up, it might work, but the name's wrong.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

Now now you lot, play nice, :rockroll: What is a fuel cell... the way I see it if you put Hydrogen in and the "fuel" you produce to do the work is electricity = Fuel cell..
Now if you put electricity in and the "fuel" you produce to do the work is Hydrogen = Fuel cell, so technically they are both fuel cells (a fuel cell is basically a factory) An ordinary lead acid battery is a fuel cell.

K9d, a heat pump puts out more energy than is put in. :lol-061: With HA my understanding is that a small amount of Hydrogen acts as a catalyst making the fuel molecular bonds easier too separate, resulting in a cleaner and improved burn releasing more of the available energy, improving the ICE efficiency.


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

ColinD said:


> K9d, a heat pump puts out more energy than is put in. :lol-061:



I know the answer, but I'd love to hear your explanation as to where the extra energy comes from.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

Sorry Mul, I was being a little facetious, to some people it's magic, yes of course the energy has to come from somewhere and as you say either the air or ground, I was just having a little dig at the "Experts" that state as a fact that Hydrogen Assist cannot work (I wonder if they are members of the flat earth society.) :lol-053: I wonder what will be possible in a couple of hundred from now that "scientists and physicists" believe is impossible to day..
There has been a number of scientific facts blown out of the water in my lifetime..:hammer:


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

K9d, see my answer to Mul above.:rulez:


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

I have never stated it can't work, I just don't believe it can, two different things.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

K9d said:


> I have never stated it can't work, I just don't believe it can, two different things.



Then in your view it can't!    :lol-053:


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

K9d, can you tell me how efficient a petrol ICE is, and how much energy is wasted in unused heat.


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

ColinD said:


> Then in your view it can't!    :lol-053:



Are we speaking different languages ?


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

ColinD said:


> K9d, can you tell me how efficient a petrol ICE is, and how much energy is wasted in unused heat.



Its efficiency will depend on many factors, i.e. if its made in America it will be shockingly inefficient and probably make more noise than power, if its European or Japanese it will be a lot more efficient. As for wasted heat unfortunately loads.


----------



## sparrks (Feb 27, 2015)

Going off on a tangent, why do very few petrol engines use Common Rail direct injection? Like the type commonly used in diesels. I know Mitsubishi used to use it


----------



## Rapido (Feb 27, 2015)

*Hydrogen drycells*

I Colin

I have had a Hydrogen dry cell on four of my motorhome after going on a fitting course with Richard Bird, I now build and fit my own with improvements.

Just to give you an idea of the improvements in consumption on the first Autotrail 634lL 130 mulitjet engine, new in 2009 130multijet before I undertook the training I took my van to Stoke-on-Trent to have it remapped which was a waste of time and £400, I could not get more than 23mpg with the van being empty and just me in it,
After fitting my drycell I was getting 32mpg fully loaded.

On my brothers Autotrail on the 2.8jtd he was getting 35mpg.
All measurements where taken by starting with a full tank of fuel full to the brim drive as far as we could go on the way to the south of France, then refilling the tank to the again to the brim then calculating the mileage to work out the mpg on 4.52ltrs to the gallon.

Four MH latter I now have a Rapid 9048df A class and depending on my right foot and weather conditions I have as much as 42mpg and a good average of 38 mpg.

The other thing I get a good increases in power and an 80% decrease in fuel imitations, the funniest thing was watching the technician at the MOT test station trying to do the imitations test he was scratching his head it was only when he turned the machine down to the lowest levelled could he get a reading of none burnt fuel.

One last thing I only use 2liters of cheap bottled water to keep the cell running to Spain, the secret is a balance is amps used against litres of hydrogen made per minute 
I get 12 litres per minute on 20 maps.
This can be improved by having an extra alternator fitted for cell supply only or adding 30% of veg oil to 70% of fuel if you can get it for less than the fuel.

I’m not righting this reply to sell or promote hydrogen on demand cells just giving some idea of the savings that can be achieved it one is fitted right.

Also I’ve tried making my own bio oil from chip oil but the cost of materials and time plus the mess just didn’t work for me.

Regards
Ray


----------



## antiqueman (Feb 27, 2015)

*give up but...*

I read till about page thirteen with wine then gave up but what about arguement assist just put certain people in back of your shed and you get terrific energy. Now I am saying no more as sending idea to red bull or mclaren or whoever offers me most just waz certain people into fuel tank and it will go like rocket. Needs testing on rolling road as to how to control all this energy.:beer:


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

K9d said:


> Its efficiency will depend on many factors, i.e. if its made in America it will be shockingly inefficient and probably make more noise than power, if its European or Japanese it will be a lot more efficient. As for wasted heat unfortunately loads.



Tell me about it.. but mine is very quiet, You come across as somebody with intelligence, so instead of thinking of why it can't work, go back to basics, and start thinking of how it can. There's a lot of energy going to waste, how could a small amount of Hydrogen introduced into the air intake improve efficiency.
  I don't know the answers, I only know from a practical point of view it does,
Best wishes  :drive:


----------



## K9d (Feb 27, 2015)

I can understand how adding an extra combustible element, in this case Hydrogen, can change the characteristics of an engine, but I can't understand how the same engine can produce the Hydrogen using less energy to create it than the boost it gives to the engine.
I've read the thread on LPG assist for diesel engines and can understand how that could work, an extra combustible element is being introduced but the engine doesn't have to make the LPG.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

Rapido said:


> I Colin
> 
> I have had a Hydrogen dry cell on four of my motorhome after going on a fitting course with Richard Bird, I now build and fit my own with improvements.
> 
> ...



Interesting!.. you are using a very high amperage, at the moment I am using 7.5Amps, I have no idea how much Hydrogen is being produced, I believe that you can reach a certain point where the you can up the amps but the gains are negligible. 
Good Luck.


----------



## Rapido (Feb 27, 2015)

The way it works, the hydrogen go in through the air intake which gives a brighter burn of fuel and stops build-up of carbon on the pistons, i.e. this increases the power reduces unburnt fuel coming out of the tail pipe we have all seen the soot on the tail pipe side of motorhomes this a result of unburnt fuel.


----------



## trevskoda (Feb 27, 2015)

sparrks said:


> Going off on a tangent, why do very few petrol engines use Common Rail direct injection? Like the type commonly used in diesels. I know Mitsubishi used to use it



mercury and toyhatsu use it in there hpdi outboards,the hp is a small compressor which blowes in air around the injector spray to give a better burn to the stratafied fuel charge,plus its common rail injection used on four stroke and two stroke.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 27, 2015)

K9d said:


> I can understand how adding an extra combustible element, in this case Hydrogen, can change the characteristics of an engine, but I can't understand how the same engine can produce the Hydrogen using less energy to create it than the boost it gives to the engine.
> I've read the thread on LPG assist for diesel engines and can understand how that could work, an extra combustible element is being introduced but the engine doesn't have to make the LPG.



This is a link posted by Tezza which makes very interesting reading, I take most things with a pinch of salt, but never the less food for thought, well worth the full read.

http://www.eagle-research.com/erpdf/fs/HyZor/HyZorProofs/HyZorProofs110316.pdf


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

I can see how adding a gas like Hydrogen to the mix could improve performance. What it may do to your engine ???. What I fail to understand is why you don't just have a cylinder of hydrogen. Surely if produced on an industrial scale, it would be cheaper and more efficient and you would have plenty available at times of high demand. Would your cell cope with the demand of a cold engine pulling a van up a steep hill.

I think Hydrogen is a wonderful clean fuel so I would love this to work but I have just seen too many magic cures in the past.

Richard


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

Hi Tbear, In fact the engine runs much cleaner, I decided to check the plugs the other day and couldn't believe how clean they were, and no it's not due to a weak mixture! Have a look at the following link about BG, very interesting. I too have seen  about the magic magnets Etc. I had a V12 Jaguar XJS which didn't like me having fuel in the tank so emptied it rather quickly so I looked at various so called fuel savers, but soon came to the conclusion that they were just a scam.  

http://www.eagle-research.com/erpdf/fs/HyZor/HyZorProofs/HyZorProofs110316.pdf


----------



## Firefox (Feb 28, 2015)

The last sentence is telling. Hydrogen produced elsewhere and brought into an onboard tank does work, but the scamsters love to confuse people by claiming the miniscule quantities produced onboard is the same thing. They just fill the blurb with terms like "Hydrogen assist" or "Hydrogen power" and most people are not savvy enough to know the difference.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

[No message]


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

ColinD said:


> Hi Tbear, In fact the engine runs much cleaner, I decided to check the plugs the other day and couldn't believe how clean they were, and no it's not due to a weak mixture! Have a look at the following link about BG, very interesting. I too have seen  about the magic magnets Etc. I had a V12 Jaguar XJS which didn't like me having fuel in the tank so emptied it rather quickly so I looked at various so called fuel savers, but soon came to the conclusion that they were just a scam.
> 
> http://www.eagle-research.com/erpdf/fs/HyZor/HyZorProofs/HyZorProofs110316.pdf



Hi colin,

I don't doubt that you get less muck produced and hydrogen contains no carbon but does it have an effect on the seals and gaskets or the bearings and metal surfaces. Do the sensors and thermocouples work as well. I am no engineer so I have no idea. Does it have an effect on Nitrous oxides and other pollutants. Does it have an effect on the particles produced to make them more or less irritant. Too many questions for my little brain. 

Richard


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

Mul said:


> Oops, but to produce Hydrogen on industrial commercial scales requires hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) or electrolysis both manpower time inefficient nd crap goin up chimneys. Then there is the energy required to make it... fossil fuels nuclear etc. It doesn't occur naturally in nature for quick bottling. Nowt 4*free, this poor planet !  The marketing folks love clean fuel forgetting the interdependencies and the bigger picture unfortunately.
> 
> Chrz Mul.



Burning Hydrogen produces very little pollution so is clean.

The production of any energy source for a combustion engine is going to course pollution. If you produce it in small inefficient ways, it will then course more pollution. Imagine if we all had our own little Oil Refinery in our back garden. Silly I know but I am sure you get my point. If you produce your Hydrogen on a scale like you produce your Diesel then you can limit to an extent the pollution coursed.

You do not need to burn fossil fuels to produce it but that may be the cheapest in the longrun. 

With the oil industry in crisis. The production of hydrogen may be a Godsend for the  inter-dependencies.

The caveat here has to be the potential for Hydrogen to be dangerous.

Richard


----------



## 1807truckman (Feb 28, 2015)

*Hydrogen assist*

I've been following this thread with interest, I work for a large company that re-manufactures diesel engines and transmissions, mostly for heavy plant and railway use, one of our customers asked us to investigate this type of system along with the supplying company, we have a team of highly qualified engineers and technicians with many years experience in the diesel engine industry, the testing was to be carried out on our premises under controlled conditions, we allocated one test bed for this purpose, the first test was conducted with the standard engine as rebuilt by us, the results were taken after the usual run in period and at the eight pre-set power settings, the fuel usage was recorded as was the fuel return to tank. Then the HHO system was fitted, this caused a great amount of problems, they couldn't get the required amount of hydrogen production from their system so they did many modifications, uprating the electrical system being one, after almost three weeks of messing about the customer told the supplier to pack up as the results so far collected made the system not worth investing in and they were also worried about the fire/explosion risk involved in having hydrogen under a passenger carrying vehicle. 
As a side note we also long term tested a catalitic system with another customer, fitted to three vehicles, after two years and 200,000 miles each the systems were removed as there had been no recordable improvement in fuel consumption compared to an un-modified engine. So in my opinion these systems are a waste of money.


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

Mul said:


> Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air by Prof David JC MacKay
> 
> I have the paper copy but is available on line, wonderful book full of accurate, easy to understand, O-Level 'ish, facts. Page 129  (upto 131) is interesting ref Hydrogen and Energy in/ out.
> 
> ...



The prof does seem to sound a little bias but he quotes figures that I cannot argue with. However he does not seem to talk much about the effect of adding just a little hydrogen to a Diesel engine or did I miss it.

He is bit dismissive of hydrogen but it is a tech which the boffins have been playing with for a long time. It has never flourished but neither has it gone away. With the advances in new tech and the rate we are burning fossil fuels? I seem to remember reading once that Hydrogen is the most prevalent element in the universe. Who knows what we will or will not be allowed to drive in 20 years time. Will private leisure vehicles be banned all together?? 

Richard


----------



## invalid (Feb 28, 2015)

Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way, soon we may not have to extract Hydrogen from water, if fracking takes off there will be enough gas in our water to truly run our cars on water. ( Hopefully just joking?) :mad2:


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

David, you take yourself too seriously, the first bit was a bit of humor on my part, the :lol-061: was a clue.
How did I make "knowing about a wide range of subjects." a negative, because of your knowledge about a wide range of subjects, I though that, like myself you had come across quite a few "experts" who were full of BS, I will be amazed if you say you haven't.
as for Hydrogen Assist, I have based the information on personal experience, not on something I have read, or theorized about. As to whether it improves things by using the gas produced to act as a catalyst, or just causes an improved burn I do not know, BUT it works for me.
Regarding the Otto cycle I thought all the teams in the Tour de France used them.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

Tbear said:


> Hi colin,
> 
> I don't doubt that you get less muck produced and hydrogen contains no carbon but does it have an effect on the seals and gaskets or the bearings and metal surfaces. Do the sensors and thermocouples work as well. I am no engineer so I have no idea. Does it have an effect on Nitrous oxides and other pollutants. Does it have an effect on the particles produced to make them more or less irritant. Too many questions for my little brain.
> 
> Richard


Apparently the exhaust gasses are much cleaner, not too sure about  Nitrous oxides though. as for the sensors they work as intended but the o2 sensor could cause problems, the system I have fitted, and I quote, taken from the De Verde facebook page.
 "Since January, all our hydrogen kits are running as HHHN, not HHO. This is because HHHN does not trip exhaust sensors, the unique electrolyte we developed allows hydrogen to be produced in larger amounts than HHO, yet reduces the amount of oxygen produced. This is resulting in some amazing mpg figures, with increased torque. In short, our cells are the most advanced available!
To order yours contact us :
Home - Hydrogen Hybrids "


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

1807truckman said:


> I've been following this thread with interest, I work for a large company that re-manufactures diesel engines and transmissions, mostly for heavy plant and railway use, one of our customers asked us to investigate this type of system along with the supplying company, we have a team of highly qualified engineers and technicians with many years experience in the diesel engine industry, the testing was to be carried out on our premises under controlled conditions, we allocated one test bed for this purpose, the first test was conducted with the standard engine as rebuilt by us, the results were taken after the usual run in period and at the eight pre-set power settings, the fuel usage was recorded as was the fuel return to tank. Then the HHO system was fitted, this caused a great amount of problems, they couldn't get the required amount of hydrogen production from their system so they did many modifications, uprating the electrical system being one, after almost three weeks of messing about the customer told the supplier to pack up as the results so far collected made the system not worth investing in and they were also worried about the fire/explosion risk involved in having hydrogen under a passenger carrying vehicle.
> As a side note we also long term tested a catalitic system with another customer, fitted to three vehicles, after two years and 200,000 miles each the systems were removed as there had been no recordable improvement in fuel consumption compared to an un-modified engine. So in my opinion these systems are a waste of money.



With Hydrogen on demand you do not produce any gas unless the engine is running! so none is stored.
Not all systems are the same, I can only comment on the one I have fitted, it works for me.


----------



## Firefox (Feb 28, 2015)

1807truckman said:


> I've been following this thread with interest, I work for a large company that re-manufactures diesel engines and transmissions, mostly for heavy plant and railway use, one of our customers asked us to investigate this type of system along with the supplying company, we have a team of highly qualified engineers and technicians with many years experience in the diesel engine industry, the testing was to be carried out on our premises under controlled conditions, we allocated one test bed for this purpose, the first test was conducted with the standard engine as rebuilt by us, the results were taken after the usual run in period and at the eight pre-set power settings, the fuel usage was recorded as was the fuel return to tank. Then the HHO system was fitted, this caused a great amount of problems, they couldn't get the required amount of hydrogen production from their system so they did many modifications, uprating the electrical system being one, after almost three weeks of messing about the customer told the supplier to pack up as the results so far collected made the system not worth investing in and they were also worried about the fire/explosion risk involved in having hydrogen under a passenger carrying vehicle.
> As a side note we also long term tested a catalitic system with another customer, fitted to three vehicles, after two years and 200,000 miles each the systems were removed as there had been no recordable improvement in fuel consumption compared to an un-modified engine. So in my opinion these systems are a waste of money.



Finally someone who has tried the system on a test bed. The HHO scam artists who sell these systems certainly don't, because they know there will be no measurable improvement. My guess is the mpg will be worse, as the drag on the engine and heat losses in the wires wastes fuel.

Hence NO manufacturer fits these systems as standard on new vehicles... a very very telling piece of information.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

Firefox said:


> Finally someone who has tried the system on a test bed. The HHO scam artists who sell these systems certainly don't, because they know there will be no measurable improvement. My guess is the mpg will be worse, as the drag on the engine and heat losses in the wires wastes fuel.
> 
> Hence NO manufacturer fits these systems as standard on new vehicles... a very very telling piece of information.



have a look at this, Pepsi I believe did some tests in Canada, now they are purchasing more on demand Hydrogen assisted Trucks, fancy them spending all that money on a scam. 

http://hydrogenfs.com/Orlando Fleet Release 042309.pdf


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

ColinD said:


> have a look at this, Pepsi I believe did some tests in Canada, now they are purchasing more on demand Hydrogen assisted Trucks, fancy them spending all that money on a scam.
> 
> http://hydrogenfs.com/Orlando Fleet Release 042309.pdf



I read it as what they hope to achieve from multifuel engines. Most of the saving from the use of electricity. The hydrogen is injected but I did not notice where it was coming from. I am pleased that people are experimenting but my £500 is staying in my back pocket for now.

Richard


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

Tbear said:


> I read it as what they hope to achieve from multifuel engines. Most of the saving from the use of electricity. The hydrogen is injected but I did not notice where it was coming from. I am pleased that people are experimenting but my £500 is staying in my back pocket for now.
> 
> Richard



In Canada they have been using them since 2009, I don't think they would have ordered more if they didn't work.

Pepsi Beverages Company Fleet Adds Hydrogen-Injected Trucks - Article - Green Fleet Magazine

I reckon all you non believers should club together and get one van fitted, after all if it doesn't work you would get your money back anyway...:rockroll::drive:


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

One of the girls I work with was chatting to her Canadian mum the other day. -27 C where she was. They need a bit of something extra. 

Richard


----------



## Tezza (Feb 28, 2015)

Wasting your time Colin...thats why i dropped out . We are liars. Thats all there is to it. People dont believe us. So let them carry on.
There are 3 people on here who have them fitted who say they work...and all the others who say they dont work....have never had one. Telling bit of information that hahahahahha


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

Tezza said:


> Wasting your time Colin...thats why i dropped out . We are liars. Thats all there is to it. People dont believe us. So let them carry on.



You really need to calm down. Nobody has called anyone a liar. You have an opinion and I am not convinced so we are all having a discussion about it. Its what forums are about

Richard


----------



## Tezza (Feb 28, 2015)

Tbear said:


> You really need to calm down. Nobody has called anyone a liar. You have an opinion and I am not convinced so we are all having a discussion about it. Its what forums are about
> 
> Richard


Im calm and just laughing about all of you....I say they work...you say they dont. so...i must be lieing.Or is there another word for it.Or are you accepting that im telling the truth and that they must work then?.
Nothing really to discuss...i say it works from experience...you say it doesnt from google." other say it works...and you dismiss them as well. But your right...there is nothing to discuss the people who use it says it works. The only people here who say it doesnt are the ones who dont use it. Theres the difference


----------



## Tbear (Feb 28, 2015)

Tezza said:


> Im calm and just laughing about all of you....I say they work...you say they dont. so...i must be lieing.Or is there another word for it.Or are you accepting that im telling the truth and that they must work then?.
> Nothing really to discuss...i say it works from experience...you say it doesnt from google." other say it works...and you dismiss them as well. But your right...there is nothing to discuss the people who use it says it works. The only people here who say it doesnt are the ones who dont use it. Theres the difference



When did I say they don't work?

Nothing to discuss but a whole new era of engineering if you are in anyway correct.

When did I quote Google saying it didn't work.

Who did I dismiss.

When did i say that there was nothing to discuss.

People that have little faith in it are hardly liable to use it are they.

If that is not a case of chucking your teddy out I don't know what is. Next you will be starting a thread saying that nobody loves you! 

Richard


----------



## K9d (Feb 28, 2015)

Your wasting your time Tbear, Tezza doesn't understand that people can have differing opinions and yet not be calling the other a liar, its just differing opinions.

If I say I believe in alien lifeforms and someone else doesn't does it make either of us a liar, no it just means we have differing opinions.

I have......an......idea.....that......Tezza.....may.........understand..........................................................................................


----------



## invalid (Feb 28, 2015)

K9d said:


> Your wasting your time Tbear, Tezza doesn't understand that people can have differing opinions and yet not be calling the other a liar, its just differing opinions.
> 
> If I say I believe in alien lifeforms and someone else doesn't does it make either of us a liar, no it just means we have differing opinions.
> 
> Clearly you've visited Dartmoor recently. :lol-053:


----------



## trevskoda (Feb 28, 2015)

other life forms but not as we know it jim,oh theres clingons on the starboard side starboard side.:lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053:


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> other life forms but not as we know it jim,oh theres clingons on the starboard side starboard side.:lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053:



They should have been more careful and not fallen overboard, but how long can they cling on for.  :scared::boat::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049:


----------



## Tezza (Feb 28, 2015)

K9d said:


> Your wasting your time Tbear, Tezza doesn't understand that people can have differing opinions and yet not be calling the other a liar, its just differing opinions.
> 
> If I say I believe in alien lifeforms and someone else doesn't does it make either of us a liar, no it just means we have differing opinions.
> 
> I have......an......idea.....that......Tezza.....may.........understand..........................................................................................


And.......by.......that......you.......mean.......what????...........? just press ignore if you dont like it
Its not an opinion...its a fact that i have more torque....just we are not discussing opinions  . 3 people have said that it works. the 3 people do not have an opinion as they have it and it is showing as working. No opinion involved from those. The people who say it does not work...that is their opinion...as they have not tried one. Am i correct so far?????
My van has more torque after installation. Not an opinion.  So i am not guessing or making an informed opinion. but the people who are their basing their opinions on what they read. Now prove me wrong...install one...nothing to lose 30 day money back guarantee if it doesnt work. So put up and prove everybody wrong.simples easy. 
And if i didnt understand people have different opinions i would have nothing to say would i?
But k9d losing...has to resort to the way i write.Love it when i get up peoples noses so bad.........So...ok I put my money where my mouth is....and you lot....lol. carry on hahahahh
alien lifeform...hmmmm.....ok as of yet nobody has walked in with an alien...so you are correct...its an opinion.Nowif somebody walked in with his alien mate or told you where they lived then that would be a fact...following? see the difference? One person actually has one as a friend...but the net says..." when i last looked in 2008 ( thats when nearly everything bad was written about hydrogen assist  seems to have gone very quiet in the last few years ) i didnt see any aliens but there again i didnt see any tablets or iphones or 4g or 4k tv's . So they cant possibly exist and work either.


----------



## Firefox (Mar 1, 2015)

Yes, just different opinions. I say they are a scam. The after market sellers claim 20-30% better mpg. 

The technology has been around many years, and the fact is they are not fitted by any vehicle makers who spend billions on extracting tiny %'s of improvement elsewhere than onboard HHO. If they could spend £100 per vehicle on some very simple parts and get 30% mpg improvement (even 15% would do!), they surely would. It would mean their vehicles would outsell everyone else's in the blink of an eye. They would dominate the market. It doesn't happen though does it... I wonder why?


----------



## Tezza (Mar 1, 2015)

They can also make lightbulbs that never blow...they can also make mobile phones completely waterproof by just spraying them and a load of other things too....but it doesnt happen though.....wonder why.


----------



## K9d (Mar 1, 2015)

Tezza said:


> And.......by.......that......you.......mean.......what????...........? just press ignore if you dont like it
> Its not an opinion...its a fact that i have more torque....just we are not discussing opinions  . 3 people have said that it works. the 3 people do not have an opinion as they have it and it is showing as working. No opinion involved from those. The people who say it does not work...that is their opinion...as they have not tried one. Am i correct so far?????
> My van has more torque after installation. Not an opinion.  So i am not guessing or making an informed opinion. but the people who are their basing their opinions on what they read. Now prove me wrong...install one...nothing to lose 30 day money back guarantee if it doesnt work. So put up and prove everybody wrong.simples easy.
> And if i didnt understand people have different opinions i would have nothing to say would i?
> ...



Have you put your van on a rolling road before and after installation, if not then its still just opinion.
Trust me your not getting up my nose, I read your rantings and smile as I form a mental picture of a sad person who wants to argue with the world, kind of a Victor Meldrew on steroids. As for imitating your writing, it took a lot of effort to be so bad, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the multiple fullstops, the other grammatical errors I put down to your excited state of mind.
The alien thing was just an example of how people can have differing opinions, yet amazingly you still want to make that an argument, you really are a strange character.

P.S. Sony make a mobile phone that is waterproof, mobile phones and tablets were around in 2008 and the first 4K monitor was built in 2001 by IBM, if you're going to make statements at least think them through or do some research.


----------



## jagmanx (Mar 1, 2015)

*I wish*



K9d said:


> Have you put your van on a rolling road before and after installation, if not then its still just opinion.
> Trust me your not getting up my nose, I read your rantings and smile as I form a mental picture of a sad person who wants to argue with the world, kind of a Victor Meldrew on steroids. As for imitating your writing, it took a lot of effort to be so bad, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the multiple fullstops, the other grammatical errors I put down to your excited state of mind.
> The alien thing was just an example of how people can have differing opinions, yet amazingly you still want to make that an argument, you really are a strange character.
> 
> P.S. Sony make a mobile phone that is waterproof, mobile phones and tablets were around in 2008 and the first 4K monitor was built in 2001 by IBM, if you're going to make statements at least think them through or do some research.



That those who post could refrain from being rude to others.
"Wildcamping The Wild Fun and Friendly Motorhome Community"

NOT ALWAYS !


----------



## K9d (Mar 1, 2015)

jagmanx said:


> That those who post could refrain from being rude to others.
> "Wildcamping The Wild Fun and Friendly Motorhome Community"
> 
> NOT ALWAYS !



I only respond to rudeness, never start it.


----------



## Tezza (Mar 1, 2015)

K9d said:


> Have you put your van on a rolling road before and after installation, if not then its still just opinion.
> Trust me your not getting up my nose, I read your rantings and smile as I form a mental picture of a sad person who wants to argue with the world, kind of a Victor Meldrew on steroids. As for imitating your writing, it took a lot of effort to be so bad, perhaps you can explain the purpose of the multiple fullstops, the other grammatical errors I put down to your excited state of mind.
> The alien thing was just an example of how people can have differing opinions, yet amazingly you still want to make that an argument, you really are a strange character.
> 
> P.S. Sony make a mobile phone that is waterproof, mobile phones and tablets were around in 2008 and the first 4K monitor was built in 2001 by IBM, if you're going to make statements at least think them through or do some research.


Ohhhh so your telling me there wasnt a 4k tv in in 1990....wow...bet somebody somewhere thought it was impossible. And it takes two to argue...so i sit here and smile to myself and have a mental picture of basil fawlty running around getting it all wrong and getting all excited. and in a dither. And i dont want to argue with a basil but.... like i said before the dross and drivel that people spout here somebody has to try and show them the way.
hahahahhahahahaha...i drive my vehicle and know im making far fewer gear changes and it goes up hill easier without changing down...and thats an opinion????????????BASIL!!!!!!!! get in the real world.
here is NASA's testing....that good enough for you or is that just their opinion hahahahahahahahahhahhahhahahqha

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170.pdf
i know you cant click a pdf link so copy and paste
So at the end of the day...you have an opinion and i have a fact. so best left there i think. 


*" Criticizing someone's spelling or grammar on the internet is the last refuge of someone who doesn't have an argument."*

In case you didnt know i use the dots for hesitation or as the link shows a suspension point. So your so good at grammar i would have thought you knew about that.But its ok...i wont hold that against you...the word is ellipses. And i admit i might put a dot or 2 too many
http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/ellipses.


----------



## Tezza (Mar 1, 2015)

K9d said:


> I only respond to rudeness, never start it.


Where was i rude?...if i was i will apologise immediately


----------



## Tezza (Mar 1, 2015)

Tbear said:


> When did I say they don't work?
> 
> Nothing to discuss but a whole new era of engineering if you are in anyway correct.
> 
> ...


My teddy stays firmly in... told you...i couldnt give a flying fig what people on here think about me...more than likely about the same as i think about them


----------



## Tbear (Mar 1, 2015)

Tezza said:


> My teddy stays firmly in... told you...i couldn't give a flying fig what people on here think about me...more than likely about the same as i think about them



So why are you writing what reads like another rant at 4.30 in the morning. I am not going to argue with you any more as I really and truly believe that you need help, not constantly being criticised.

Richard


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Mar 1, 2015)

trevskoda said:


> other life forms but not as we know it jim,oh theres clingons on the starboard side starboard side.:lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-049::lol-053::lol-053::lol-053:



Now Folks PLEASE can we get back on topic. Trev if you put Hydrogen Assist on that boat they would find it even harder to cling on. :scared::lol-053::lol-061::hammer::rulez::lol-061::lol-061::lol-061:


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 1, 2015)

ColinD said:


> Now Folks PLEASE can we get back on topic. Trev if you put Hydrogen Assist on that boat they would find it even harder to cling on. :scared::lol-053::lol-061::hammer::rulez::lol-061::lol-061::lol-061:



star trek space ship prop runs on hyd assist.


----------



## K9d (Mar 1, 2015)

Tezza said:


> *Ohhhh so your telling me there wasnt a 4k tv in in 1990*....wow...bet somebody somewhere thought it was impossible. And it takes two to argue...so i sit here and smile to myself and have a mental picture of basil fawlty running around getting it all wrong and getting all excited. and in a dither. And i dont want to argue with a basil but.... like i said before the dross and drivel that people spout here somebody has to try and show them the way.
> hahahahhahahahaha...i drive my vehicle and know im making far fewer gear changes and it goes up hill easier without changing down...and thats an opinion????????????BASIL!!!!!!!! get in the real world.
> here is NASA's testing....that good enough for you or is that just their opinion hahahahahahahahahhahhahhahahqha
> 
> ...



What?.

You really have lost the plot. 

I'm going to put you on my ignore list, that's a list of one, my reason being you only ever bring negative comments and arguments.

No doubt you'll respond to this but it will be a waste as I won't read it.

Maybe I'll start a thread entitled "Everybody hates me and I'm going to the garden to eat worms"

Enjoy your life, try and breath deep and relax some more.


----------



## Norm De Plume (Mar 1, 2015)

Tezza, for someone who dropped out of this thread several pages ago, you seem to be posting an awful lot.

Here's a link to the NASA article that actually works - http://hhoplusgas.com/documents/nasa_hho_proof.pdf

If you read that paper, you can see that NASA were adding over 1lb/hour of hydrogen in their experiments - you would need quite a big water tank if you were electrolysing at that rate.

Right - time to get some popcorn, sit back and look on in gruesome fascination.


----------



## Tbear (Mar 1, 2015)

What was the plot? I lost it about "Klingons on the starboard bow".

Richard


----------



## Tbear (Mar 1, 2015)

Sorry David, cross post. thankyou for return to subject.

Richard


----------



## Tbear (Mar 1, 2015)

runnach said:


> This help, Richard?
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FCARADb9asE



Some things will always make me smile 

Richard


----------



## Firefox (Mar 2, 2015)

^

I don't understand the point you are trying to make ... and how would you pass the MOT emissions tests, if you removed the CAT?


----------



## trevskoda (Mar 2, 2015)

Firefox said:


> ^
> 
> I don't understand the point you are trying to make ... and how would you pass the MOT emissions tests, if you removed the CAT?



i read a artical on cats which stated that they have to be in about 30c air to get working and a run of around 20 miles,so the school run mostly about 1 or less miles ,shooping about 2/3 miles and work from here to belfast for most folk 6 miles,seems there usless .
which brings me to a chap i know who had a internal crumbling inside his cat ,so he poked out the crap refitted it and it passed the mot ,so whats the point in fitting them in the first place in uk.


----------



## ricc (Mar 2, 2015)

as i understand it if a cat is supposed to be fitted, the absence of one is a refusal to test,    however its only a visual exterior inspaction., then the emissions test

hence a piece of pipe is a refusal , an empty cat shell is fine if it passes the test.


----------



## ricc (Mar 3, 2015)

Zzippy said:


> Well read it again. You asked why don't manufacturers do this or that and I answered it.
> 
> It's because they are hidebound by the rules and regs of an era.
> 
> ...




bit difficult to refit for the mot if youve as you origionally posted.... sold it to the scrappy and pocketed the cash


----------



## Firefox (Mar 3, 2015)

^
Exactly... post about CAT does not make sense.

No rules and regs on fitting HHO generators as standard. They are (allegedly) supposed to improve emissions.


----------



## jagmanx (Mar 3, 2015)

*Boring !*

This thread is getting tedious !
Members keep restating their views (albeit with different statements)

It appears the technology has "no proof" (either way)
So we simply get repeated opinions.
Which posters are entirely welcome to but....


----------



## Teutone (Mar 3, 2015)

ricc said:


> as i understand it if a cat is supposed to be fitted, the absence of one is a refusal to test,    however its only a visual exterior inspaction., then the emissions test
> 
> hence a piece of pipe is a refusal , an empty cat shell is fine if it passes the test.



I very much doubt that you will pass an emission test with the CAT removed. CO is somewhere 0.1% and as soon as you remove the cat you will see at least 1%


----------



## Firefox (Mar 3, 2015)

jagmanx said:


> This thread is getting tedious !
> Members keep restating their views (albeit with different statements)
> 
> It appears the technology has "no proof" (either way)
> ...



You don't have to read it if you don't want to ... look around this site, or indeed most forums. Nearly all of the threads are repeats and rehashes of things which have been done to death 100 times before. Even many of the jokes and "interesting" links have done the rounds several times :lol-053:


----------



## ricc (Mar 3, 2015)

my "favourite" worst one is on a naturist forum, pages and pages on whether one should or shouldnt shave ones nether regions...god knows why they find the subject so facinating


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Mar 3, 2015)

You orrible lot have given me food for thought, especially Zzippy, with HA giving a cleaner burn I was wondering what my emissions would be without the cat, unfortunately, my cat is part of the two down pipes, plus the front and rear O2 sensors so no way to easily remove to do a test (I'm sure my local friendly MOT station would test for a small fee) a replacement would be approx £150 to £200 plus shipping from the states, so have you lot got any ideas!  :idea:
Now, where could I find a knackered one.


----------



## Teutone (Mar 3, 2015)

ColinD said:


> You orrible lot have given me food for thought, especially Zzippy, with HA giving a cleaner burn I was wondering what my emissions would be without the cat, unfortunately, my cat is part of the two down pipes, plus the front and rear O2 sensors so no way to easily remove to do a test (I'm sure my local friendly MOT station would test for a small fee) a replacement would be approx £150 to £200 plus shipping from the states, so have you lot got any ideas!  :idea:
> Now, where could I find a knackered one.



I wouldn't remove the cat from a car running a 2 o2 sensor setup. Very very likely that you engine management light will come on after a while because the 2nd sensor will not see the emission values as expected and flag up an error in the ECU.

I can't understand why so many people want to remove the CAT. What do you expect to gain from this?
Except from polluting the environment, there is no real world benefit.


----------



## Rapido (Mar 3, 2015)

Perhaps I’m missing something why on earth would you want to remove the cat, by removing the cat it will give you an increase in power but engine management warning light will be visible and the vehicle will not be MOT compliant.
With HHO you can increase the power and still comply with MOT reg’s and your insurance will not be affected.

On this forum there are lots of people that have a problem with HHO, that’s fine but it’s working for me and I’m more than happy.

Regards
Ray


----------



## Firefox (Mar 3, 2015)

We would be better off debating HHO generators. Removing the CAT and "selling it to the scrappy" really was a dreadful suggestion which has no merit or discussion value whatsoever. 

At least with HHO you only lose a bit of money, not your MOT and use of your vehicle


----------



## Robmac (Mar 3, 2015)

Firefox said:


> We would be better off debating HHO generators. Removing the CAT and "selling it to the scrappy" really was a dreadful suggestion which has no merit or discussion value whatsoever.
> 
> At least with HHO you only lose a bit of money, not your MOT and use of your vehicle



Problem is Vern, somebody else is always willing to remove the Cat for you, as I have found to my expense!


----------



## Teutone (Mar 3, 2015)

I have to say that I am on the (very) sceptical side. I would be more than surprised if these systems really work and perform as advertised. Word of mouth would sell them like hot cakes and everybody and his dog would want to open a small garage to sell and fit them.

I am open minded and will consider that they are working BUT without proper proof, I am a non believer.

It puzzles me that nobody does some simple test. Stick it on a Dyno with an exhaust gas reader and off you go. Some science applied and methodical testing and we will know what is going on. Simples.
And not "i can pull up hill xyz in 5th gear now". (not meant to be offensive)


----------



## Firefox (Mar 3, 2015)

Proper tests have been done, and all have proved to be negative. That's why the devices are not mainstream fit, but instead fringe technology, sold to the unwary, or else, as has been alluded to by one of the participants here, they may produce a placebo effect.  

Nothing wrong with a placebo, as long as you are aware what you are buying into.


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Mar 3, 2015)

I have just re-read my last post and it's seems very clear, but I will try and make it very very obvious what I was saying.

(1) I would like to remove the cat SO THAT I CAN GET THE VEHICLE TESTED to see how clean the emissions are using HA without a cat, being a 5.2L V8 gas guzzler without HA or a cat I would think that the emissions would be pretty horrendous.
(2) The O2 sensors would need to be in the system, otherwise it would screw the system and throw a fault.
(3) I never suggested leaving the cat off permanently, IT WAS TO CONDUCT A TEST (Which of course, the experts among you already know couldn't possibly work) 
(4) That's why I would like to get my hands on a knackered one, I do not wish to damage my existing one.

I do hope that explains why I wish to have a play without the cat! :mad1:


----------



## Teutone (Mar 4, 2015)

ColinD said:


> I have just re-read my last post and it's seems very clear, but I will try and make it very very obvious what I was saying.
> 
> (1) I would like to remove the cat SO THAT I CAN GET THE VEHICLE TESTED to see how clean the emissions are using HA without a cat, being a 5.2L V8 gas guzzler without HA or a cat I would think that the emissions would be pretty horrendous.
> (2) The O2 sensors would need to be in the system, otherwise it would screw the system and throw a fault.
> ...



The size of your engine has nothing to do with how good or bad your emissions are. It is measured as % value. If your engine is in good mechanical condition and the tuning is spot on, the emission will be ok.

The problems you will face are the limits of CO applied to a CAT engine to pass a test. A healthy well tune engine will produce 2.5% CO without a CAT give or take. If you run it any leaner, you will risk of mechanical failure. 
For a CAT equipped engine, you need to show 0.1% CO. To achieve this value, you NEED a catalitic converter. As simple as that.
Cars with ONE 02 sensor just measure the exhaust gasses BEFORE the CAT and tell the ECU to lean or richen up. If you remove the CAT, this function is still working but will not light up the Engine check light
Then they introduced setups with TWO o2 sensors. With this sensor 1 is measuring what comes out of the engine before CAT and tells the ECU what to do. Sensor TWO BEHIND the cat is then controlling this to make sure that the emissions are achieved as desired to make sure your CAT is still in working order. 
So if you remove the CAT, sensor two will measure too high and flag up an error --> engine light on.

From my point of view, you are wasting your time playing around with it. But I bet it will be good fun.:banana:

You need to find out what emssion test you have to past with your vehicle. Depending on age, you may well be tested to no CAT values. Means you could fit an empty CAT (for not failing visual test) and still passing emissions test.
Does this make sense?


----------



## RoadTrek Boy (Apr 13, 2015)

Teutone said:


> The size of your engine has nothing to do with how good or bad your emissions are. It is measured as % value. If your engine is in good mechanical condition and the tuning is spot on, the emission will be ok.
> 
> The problems you will face are the limits of CO applied to a CAT engine to pass a test. A healthy well tune engine will produce 2.5% CO without a CAT give or take. If you run it any leaner, you will risk of mechanical failure.
> For a CAT equipped engine, you need to show 0.1% CO. To achieve this value, you NEED a catalitic converter. As simple as that.
> ...



Sorry Teutone for not seeing this earlier, the idea behind removing the internals of the cat is to prove that the emissions would still pass the MOT, I have a printout of emissions with the cat in place BUT NO Hydrogen assist fitted, as HA gives a much cleaner burn I would like to test to see just how much cleaner it is..
I hope this makes sense.  :idea:


----------

