HH0 Generator

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by hinesk, Nov 10, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hinesk

    Thread Starter New Member

    Nov 10, 2008
    1
    0
    I heard all the negativity surrounding HH0 - How it takes more energy to make it than it actually produces. How any improvements to milage would be the result of the driver actually driving more carefully. etc... etc...

    With all the research pointing against this, I decided to actually build a simple HH0 generator and test it on a Honda CRV. Before installing the device, I carefully measured my gas milage and made every attempt to drive the same speed, similar routes, etc. After driving for 1200 miles, my milage was 23.345 mpg. I installed a simple 6 plate generator without the pulse width modulator, tested the system for leaks and fired it up.

    I've driven the CRV with the HH0 generator for 800 miles now and my current milage is 28.566 mpg. This means for every gallon of gasoline, I have a net increase of 5.221 miles.

    My next move will be to install a PWM and hope that this will keep the temperature down to below 120 degrees. After driving from work to home (42 miles) the temperature of the water in the tank rises from the ambient to 130 degrees. If I doubled the miles on the trip, it will probably reach the point that it begins to pull too many amps.

    I am also looking at installing a "bubbler" on the system so it will allow a return of cooler water to the generator cell.

    I went into this project with the attitude of adding more fuel to the fire as to why it wouldn't work. I've since changed my mind and with some additional refinements and testing, I think I'll be able to increase my milage on the CRV to over 30 mpg.

    So, you guys that keep saying it won't work... lighten up a bit. Your comments remind me of all the scientists telling the Wright Brothers that there was no way they were going to take a heavier than air contraption and actually fly.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
  2. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Got any proof? Anything to share, like the circuit and the cell? Anything about introducing the gas into the engine?

    Lacking even one shred of objective validation, your claim gets evaluated as insignificant. The net is full of similar claims with similar lack of documentation.

    The Wright's had a working device. All we have is your word. Present the apparatus and a repeatable test. Otherwise, you're as believable as gas line magnets (similar claim) and those super spark plugs (similar claim).
     
  3. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,671
    898
    That is a complete myth. Obviously you have not researched that matter very well either. Many well-respected scientists, including Langley, were working on heavier than air flying machines at the time. The Wrights just beat them to the answer.

    John
     
  4. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    I believe Otto Lilienthal had been building and flying gliders for some years. The only question remaining for the Wrights was the power source. Langley might have got up with his steam engine if the launching ramp had been better built.

    It's worth noting that, the engine aside, the Wright Flyer was not a successful design in that the forward elevator made it auto-crash if stalled.

    To repeat - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. "Thousands of drivers" in Australia, or your avowed mileage increase do not constitute proof. Whoopie, anyway. My Honda Fit just gave me an average mileage of a hair over 38 MPG for the last 10 tanks.
     
  5. jpanhalt

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jan 18, 2008
    5,671
    898
    Actually the forward elevator (so-called canard design) is quite stable. They can be designed to be effectively stall proof by making the canard stall before the main wing. Rutan is one designer who has popularized that configuration. The canard plus a delta wing is very evident in high performance aircraft today.

    As for the Wright Flyer, as I understand it, its major problem was its center of gravity was off, which led to inherrent instability. I wasn't there though.

    John
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2008
  6. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Excellent job! Well done! You are half way there!

    Now all you have to do is disconnect the HH0 without changing anything else. IF your mileage drops back down to pre-modification levels (23 or 24 mpg), you will have convinced me of your success.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
  7. The Electrician

    AAC Fanatic!

    Oct 9, 2007
    2,281
    326
    It occurs to me that a good way to mostly eliminate the effect of the many extraneous variables in this setup would be like this:

    Install a fuel flow meter in the fuel line of the vehicle, and use a vehicle with cruise control. Find a several mile stretch of road of constant altitude. Drive on cruise control for several miles with the HH0 system turned on; enter the level stretch of road and drive for a couple of miles, monitoring the fuel flow rate. Continuing on cruise control, open the electrical circuit powering the HH0 system. See if the fuel flow rate increases or decreases.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
  8. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Beenthere, it is people like you that are why these people don't come forward with their devices. Ridicule and embarassment is all that await them at the hands of expert _______ like yourself.
    Question! Why would he lie about his generator setup??? WHAT IS HIS MOTIVATION? IS HE A SCAM ARTIST? DID HE TRY TO SELL YOU ANYTHING?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 15, 2008
  9. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    Thank you for your valuable contribution. Not being willing to take someone's unsupported word makes me a bad person. Mea culpa.

    It seems quite possible that these people do not come forward because the stuff doesn't work very well, if at all. That is more likely to be why this stuff isn't widely available off the shelf, or already installed. Claims of conspiracy to suppress are risable. How many web sites hawking this stuff are there?

    If you can attribute no malicious motivation to the claimant who says his mileage increased, why must you say that ours has to be when we doubt it? I freely assert that some device that can positively give me better gas mileage is very interesting. I also have enough background to make an assessment of the likelihood of that device's functionality.

    Frankly, this whole topic is non-productive. The equipment is absurd. The claims never are accompanied by details such that the device/s may be duplicated and subjected to rigorous testing. I won't run through the numbers, but I have seen a site where a clam of having driven for a distance of 100 miles using the HH0 gas produced by 4 oz of water and no other fuel was made. The aspect of the unreal hangs over all this equipment.

    Try to pay attention here: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    I just tracked my gas mileage over 10 tanks. The average was just over 38 MPG. Some individual tanks got over 40, some under 36. Variability in driving conditions is pretty great.And I drive pretty much the same routes and distances. The car is a non-modified in any way Honda Fit. It is the basic model with automatic transmission. I find the 6 MPG variance kind of remarkable.

    A series of tests on a closed circuit track using cruise control would be a good way to establish the increase in mileage claimed by HH0 gas injection. This isn't rocket science. It can be done, and any number of organizations like car magazines or Popular Science would love to do the testing (or so I would suppose). Instead, everything is shrouded in mystery.

    People sell magnets and special spark plugs that are going to increase gas mileage by similar amounts. They are lots cheaper and less trouble. Why not just take their word for it? They don't have any objective test data, either. That makes their claims every bit as valid as yours.

    There is absolutely no way to select electrolysed gas injection over cow magnets or special spark plugs as a superior means of increasing gas mileage. With no objective test data, there is no way to tell if any or all methods really work. The spark plugs ads are really well done. Perhaps that is, in it's own way, as convincing as deep personal conviction?

    You, sir, are the one who came to this site wishing us to design for you a device that is purely a creation of a scam artist. You wish to defend a dream, but have no interest in increasing your knowledge so as to be able to make a more informed assessment. That means you have to take our word for it, until such time that you can deal with the electronics yourself (and will be able to see why we hold our noses).

    Ignorance is curable by education.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
  10. hgmjr

    Moderator

    Jan 28, 2005
    9,030
    214
    I am waiting for the episode on the MYTHBUSTERS TV show that puts this technology to the test.

    hgmjr
     
  11. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Indeed we shall have to provide overwhelmingly convincing evidence for one of us to see the other's perspective.

    Perhaps when it's finished you'll buy a plane ticket, since I'm sure that a claim and a video are not going to convince you.

    Although, it might be more satisfying when it is finished to NOT tell you about it.
     
  12. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,135
    1,786
    You needn't concern yourself on our account. Reveal, don't reveal it is quite simply a matter of no concern.
     
  13. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    To all,
    What is an HH0 generator?
    I ask because it seems to be a sticking point between electronic people, and the free energy guys. If there is a basic illustration of this device, I'd like to see it.
    I'm just a handyman, so, my job is to fix what the customer asks.
    Dan
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
  14. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    This is close to what was done by Mike Allen of Popular Science Magazine. He used the fuel injection pulse widths from the OBD II port to measure engine performance with and without the magic gas. He found zero improvement.
    Try a search on the exact word "electrolyzer." It's actually a pretty cool toy, but just a toy. The free energy crowd claims it is exempt from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. They say burning the generated gas in the engine creates more energy than was needed to separate the gas in the first place.

    We explain why this can't be the case. We point to numerous other logical causes for the mileage increase, ie burning a leaner fuel mix. In response to our attempts to help them understand, they stamp their little feet and call us names.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2009
  15. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    Why wait 'till then? Why not start now?
     
  16. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    I find the comments about the possibility of shortening the engine life interesting. TANSTAFL, Their Ain't No Such Thing As a Free Lunch could be used to describe the Laws of Thermodynamics. But I guess that belongs in the Sci Fi thread. I wonder how many of the true believers read Sci Fi (Fantisy is excluded).

    I can see getting minor increases, but at the cost of something else. Nothing in nature is truely free. It takes brains and knowlegde to get anything, we live in a rich environment.
     
  17. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    That's speculation on my part, Bill. I see a sharper explosion in the cylinder creating effects like increased bearing wear and extra blow-by the sealing rings. I doubt if there is a lot of excess capacity built into the wrist pin and big end bearing areas.

    Plus, if the combustion more closely resembles an explosion to the extent of requiring timing changes, how can you be sure you have enough ignition delay for all driving conditions? That would take a custom program in the ECU. Any timing inaccuracy is going to waste more fuel than can be saved by adding the Brown's gas.

    This is a real problem for under hood electrolyzers. They can operate at some rate, which may be too much at idle, but will certainly be too little under acceleration. That would tend to imply operation only at cruise might be significant, as reasonably steady power requirement might be matched to gas generation.

    Some means of detecting gas flow rate and dealing with the addition to the air stream sounds necessary, rather than some circuit that fudges the O2 sensor output.

    It's also a bit disturbing that it is taken as gospel that you always have to deal with a dangerously explosive mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas. Building the cell so it only collects the hydrogen for burning seems to be a reasonable safety measure. It's not as if there isn't plenty of extra oxygen in the inlet air. And you are only then admitting extra fuel, which may let the ECU deal with it more effectively.

    But that is why I am pretty well soured on the whole movement. We are supposed to take somebody's word for it. Nobody seems to think about the value of objective testing to establish how or if it works. I have covered this ground before.

    To editorialize a bit, if we place our imprimatur upon some hydrolyzing circuit by just jumping in without asking hard questions, we then become agents in foisting off a scam on the public. We owe it to everybody using these forums, including the ones who become upset when we won't confirm their beliefs.
     
  18. Farlander

    Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    Why is this so hard to believe? Don't we get more energy from oxidizing gasoline than is needed to ignite it? Does water not contain more energy than gasoline? Aren't both of these substances liquid matter?

    Water is a dielectric fuel source. By placing a diode on the secondary of step up transformer, and using dielectrically insulated electrodes, we can pump voltage into the cell without leaking any amperage. When the breakdown threshold of water's molecular bond is reached, the molecule just falls apart.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2008
  19. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    Been said before, but water is the ash from burning hydrogen and oxygen. Ash is spent fuel. This really isn't a difficult concept.
     
  20. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    About the only way water can be said to have more energy than some fuel like gasoline is to consider the mass-energy equivalence (E = MC^2). But you only are able to extract the energy contained in mass by fusion and/or fission reactions. Not by any chemical process at all. And it still takes more energy to electrolyze a quantity of water than you can obtain by burning it back to water.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2008
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.