You can’t run cars on water, I think we’ve discussed the physics of that in detail. That would be like a perpetuum mobile. Water is not a fuel.

None of these jam jar electrolyzers have been scientifically tested. The guys who sell them don’t seem too interested in having them independently tested to verify how well they work (or don’t work, as the case may be).

If you’re selling “hydrogen generators”, as seems likely from your pseudonym and the link you posted (which I removed), you’re not running your own car on water but on the money that other people send you after you make them believe that they can run THEIR cars on water…

What’s the best way to document results? The first option is a dyno test, where the variables can be controlled. They cost about $100-200 according to what I’ve seen on other discussion boards. A second option to document results is to purchase an OBD-II interface and software to pull sensor measurements directly from the ECU while carefully running trials that will smooth out the variables (e.g. elevation differences). The software and interface can run about $200 and up. Also, emissions testing, which does not measure the proposed mileage gains, may be necessary to ensure that emissions comply with EPA standards.

I haven’t seen any data yet concerning either option, despite looking for it pretty frequently. DIYers probably aren’t willing to pay that much when they can just fill up their tank and compute their mileage immediately afterward. “Professional installers” could easily have these tests conducted by a neutral party to ensure consumer confidence, but this appears to be absent among their online advertising pages, so heavy skepticism is warranted.

Personally, I have installed a hydrogen supplementation kit on my vehicle and obtained consistent results of around 30% in fuel savings. It should be noted that this was only for highway driving, low-load conditions. The kit was of the most simple form, a jam-jar electrolyzer, that resembled something similar to the “water4gas” kit but with modifications (Note that I am not promoting water4gas kits in any way). With this device, I would often pull around 25 amps from the 12 volt battery, or 300 watts. Assuming 50% efficiency, this equates to 5 grams of hydrogen per hour (about 30 watt-hours needed to produced 1 gram at perfect efficiency), which is not a whole lot when compared to the amounts used to obtain positive results in the scientific literature. However, could it be possible that the baseline sensor measurements are modified appropriately on some vehicles (2001 Nissan Sentra for me) to enable the ECU to shift toward a leaner running engine, or the spark-timing is shifted closer to top-dead center because of the faster burn that may be enabled by the hydrogen addition? I can’t say with confidence until I am in a position to do some actual experimentation or see actual data, but they are the only two ways that this particular setup could work since, in theory, they could modify the heat transfer mechanism.

You said, “If this very simple technology really does work as described…”

I would suggest that a big part of the problem concerns “who” is actually “describing” this technology. The people vary as well as their descriptions, so this can be detrimental to meaningful discussion.

What is meaningful to discussion? The best answer is objective scientific experiments. Yet, I have never once came across a single experiment in the literature that analyzes the device at its most simple form, a homemade jam-jar electrolyzer. However, I have found many scientific articles that discuss various aspects of how an analogous device may work and the aspects of hydrogen addition to gasoline combustion. For those that are interested, see the link to my thread on physicsforums.com:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=304690

It includes 13 sources with links from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

1) Why doesn’t some auto company implement it so that they can claim huge mileage gains for their vehicles and thereby absolutely BURY their competitors?

2) Why don’t countries with no domestic oil production (nor oil-related industries which someone on this forum would claim are conspiring against the technology) give their Gross Domestic Product a big boost by lowering their dependence on “foreign oil” (and the expenses which come with such)?

3) If this simple jam jar technology works so well, why don’t any of the “fans” who have supposedly BUILT such high-mpg systems go into business and make billions in profits? Indeed, you could franchise the idea (or even sell it through Jiffy Lube!) and have signs on the highway saying, “Let us improve your mileage over 20% and more! Only $199.95 and 30 minutes!”

4) The politician (or even the President of the United States) who ends the nation’s dependence on Middle Eastern oil [our #2 supplier] would go down in history as a great hero — and would also lower our contributions to Global Warming. (!) After all, improved mpg means less oil consumed — perhaps enough savings such that American and Canadian oil sources would be sufficient! We wouldn’t have to send billions of dollars annually to an Islamic world that uses those dollars to support terrorism against us.

Yes, even if someone can’t understand the basic scientific principles involved, it is easy to see that no “worldwide conspiracy” is going to be big enough and strong enough to prevent all sorts of people and nations from using the technology to make themselves RICH. Indeed, I see posts in this forum from people who claim they use this amazing technology to save on their car’s fuel costs. But why don’t I see any posts saying, “After seeing the amazing improvements on my own car’s mpg, I put such devices on every vehicles in my company’s fleet cars. It was such a success that I opened a retail store and installation shop where we converted an average of 25 cars per day in our first year. We recently opened our third location and we are discussing a deal with Sears Auto Centers for permission to use our trademark and design nationwide so that I can retire and live off my share of the profits. Yes, I would never have dreamed that I would be the first one to take a very old technology and make a fortune off of the obvious! It seemed too good to be true but it wasn’t!”

Yes. I guess I will have to be very patient while I wait for such a posting here. (And meanwhile countries and companies will ignore this incredible technology and waste billions of dollars in oil expenses and leave billions in easy profits on the table. Yep. Makes sense to me. But I will always wonder who talked all of them into trading those billions of dollars for a membership in the biggest conspiracy in history.)

You said:
What they really are doing is forcing the engine management to shift to a leaner mixture, which burns hotter (possibly shortening engine life, especially valves and pistons) and also allows more smog-causing NOx
pollutants to escape from the exhaust pipe.

I agree. If you make the engine burn leaner by some modification, you don’t need “HHO” at all to get better mileage; it will kill your car though. The only way HHO can work is if the fuel map data is shifted due to the HHO inputs, so that the car runs leaner. I still want want to see data on the latter method (no mods, HHO only), but haven’t had the funds yet to purchase a labtop and necessary interfacing software. Apparently, this was done in a Popular Mechanics article and failed: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276846.html?series=19
I am still not convinced until I see actual data myself.

Here’s a document where they try to explain why they are doing what they are doing:

fuelsaver-mpg.com/doc/O2_general.html

They claim their device needs to tell the engine to use a leaner mixture (less gasoline in proportion to air) in order for it to work at the normal mix ratio of 14.7 to one (air to gasoline). That’s the ratio at which complete combustion occurs and both CO and NOx pollutants are minimized.

However, their explanation doesn’t hold any water (excuse my pun!).

They claim that the presence of hydrogen results in more complete combustion and that this leaves excess oxygen in the exhaust stream, which is sensed by the oxygen sensor and prompts the engine control unit to add gasoline, resulting in higher fuel consumption.

They claim they fake the oxygen sensor results only to counter this supposed effect.

In reality, more complete combustion in the engine would mean that carbon monoxide (CO) is oxidated all the way to carbon dioxide (CO2), a reaction that consumes one extra molecule of oxygen for every two molecules of carbon monoxide. If “hydrogen injection” really enabled more complete combustion, this would result in less leftover oxygen, which in turn results in less fuel being injected (without tinkering with the oxygen sensor), not more.

What they really are doing is forcing the engine management to shift to a leaner mixture, which burns hotter (possibly shortening engine life, especially valves and pistons) and also allows more smog-causing NOx
pollutants to escape from the exhaust pipe.

This most likely is the secret of how they can show any fuel savings at all: Yes, lean burn saves fuel at partial loads, but it will not work well in an engine not specifically designed for it and could cost you dearly down the road, not to speak of increased air pollution.

(Sorry for being sarcastic!)

But seriously, commercial television networks are primarily an advertising medium. That’s how they make money after all. Secondly they also provide entertainment, to keep people in front of the sets in between the commercial breaks. If you consider them your main source of *accurate information*, I’d say you’ve got a bit of a problem

As for “hydrogen on demand” as a way to boost efficiency, I understand your point about burning hydrogen in conjunction with gasoline not violating the laws of physics, though many peddlers of “HHO”-kits fail to explain things this way and make it sound like a perpetuum mobile.

buffordboy23 posted some studies about added hydrogen helping in lean-burn situations, but it’s by no means clear that the quantities generated by those DIY electrolysis kits are sufficient to make any impact or that any boost in efficiency exceeds the losses involved in making the hydrogen (heat losses in the engine, generator and electrolysis equipment).

I’d like to see these wild claims of vastly improved fuel mileage independently verified. So far none of the people pushing these gadgets seem to be too interested in that.

I presume you are the person behind the site you linked to (Joe Shea / HHOgames.com). Have you done anything to have a major car magazine or government institution do a road test on a hydrogen DIY kit?

As far as Cuba is concerned, there may well be some guys there rigging up jam jars and wires to their 1954 Chevrolets, hoping to save fuel. For all we know it might work out about as well for them as the blockade imposed in 1962 that was meant to bring down Fidel Castro’s regime, but probably ended up helping him stay in power for half a century: It conveniently gave him someone else to always blame for all the economic problems in his country.

Let’s get real and determine the value of ideas not by how attractive they sound when some guy tries to sell them, but by their actual results.