RoadTrek Boy
Full Member
- Posts
- 2,068
- Likes
- 2,646
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!
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)