Hmm, my pet hate, cleaning. Ya just gunna have ta redesign it Garth, hahahaha. An elotronic self cleaner like the one on my salt water pool cell, would that be possable?. Could there be a way to reverse the poles or something to repell the build up a sludge, I know that your in the early stagers of development but its worth keeping in mind or looking into something like that.

I read somewhere that u need to install an additional third plate/electrode which is neutral to do away with the sludge.....

Using distilled water would decrease the sludge as well because it contains less dissolved minerals and ferum (iron) compared to tap water. The red/brown stuff are oxidized minerals.

yeah - that's the direction i'm going next, plates with at least 2 neutral ones.

i'm using filtered rain water so shouldn't be far off being distilled.

i think the red sludge is iron out of the stainless - probably from the anode (it stays shiny)

from the articles they have found you get best results with perforated stainless plates.

From the looks of it, this thing is just using electrolysis to drive a

2h20 -> 2h2 + o2

reaction. The gas mixture is then fed into the intake and burnt.

If that is the case, you will wind up with a net loss of power.

Yo heydonms,

Would like to hear more on that......... what u have in mind

Conservation of energy says that you can't get more energy out of a system than you put in.

In this case you are putting in fuel, which is burnt to produce movement and electricity. The electricity is used to drive electrolysis which produces a gas containing chemical energy. The gas is burnt to produce movement and electricity.

In a perfect system you could build a closed loop that would keep running for ever. In practice you will lose energy at every stage (as heat, lost gas, noise, etc). By increasing the number of stages you increase the losses.

The site makes various claims using chemical terms, but fails to give an actual equation. Aside from the fact that none of the people involved in this stuff would be chemists, a balanced redox equation would show that energy is lost.

There have been numerous claims regarding this sort of thing in the past, none of them have stood up to independent investigation (in fact that site mentions Stan Myer who was pretty much convicted of being a con man for selling rights to his water engines).

excuse me - but nobody is talking about this being a perfect system or closed loop or over unity etc.

all that i am trying to acheive is better efficiency overall.

hydrogen is just being produced to act as a catalyst with existing fuel and minimise wasted unburnt fuel.

if there was indeed a net loss then mileage should have gone down with the cell running when in fact it improves.

if you ask me less dollars at the bowser is always worth looking for.

Fair enough, except that as far as I am aware, hydrogen doesn't act as a catalyst in a petrol+air reaction.

If I am wrong about that then I would be very interested in setting this system up myself, but I'm fairly sure I'm not.

Aside from that, the 2h2 + o2 -> h2o reaction has a relatively low activation energy, so hydrogen wouldn't hang around to act as a catalyst anyway.

I understand that water injection can improve performance somewhat (I must admit that I'm not familiar with how it works exactly) so this system may perform in a similar way to a water injection setup, with the disadvantages of leaching power from your electrical system and that some water is lost in the conversion (i.e. you would be better off with a normal water injection system).

I won't go into the reasons why one person (who wants the experiment to succeed) driving one car around the city is a poor method of obtaining reliable results.

I sort of drawn a simple block diagram of an engine fitted with the HHO system. Do correct me if i am wrong.........

It is true that we cant get more energy than the amount we put it. The total energy of the whole system is fixed.

However, in HHO system, not all of the kinetic energy is converted into electricity. Electricity is used to charge the battery and power up car electrical system.

Then, a portion of that electric power is then converted again into chemical power in the form of combustible gas through electrolyzer (with some losses as well of course). The combustible gas is fedback into engine. Since there is another form of fuel present in engine, so less gasoline is needed to give same output power. This is what people are looking for......lesser gasoline!!

We can see it like taking away a fraction of needed gasoline but replace the fraction with the gas. Same amount of energy output but with lesser fuel

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

No, you can't do that.

The extra drain on the electrical system will cancel out anything gained by the introduction of extra fuel.

Look at it this way, when you burn petrol you convert it to exhaust fumes, you could then take those exhaust fumes and with some fancy bits and pieces convert them back into petrol. The reason no one does this is because you have to put in more power than you would get back from burning the petrol.

The same thing applies here, you are burning hydrogen to get water, You could take that water (or any other water) and convert it back but you would lose energy. This is exactly what the electrolysis system does, except that it converts it and then burns it instead of doing it the other way around. That extra energy that is needed comes from the electrical system of your car, which charges off the alternator which puts load on the engine which burns more fuel.

The catalyst argument would work (theoretically (if hydrogen acted as a catalyst in the reaction)) by making the fuel easier to ignite, you would then get a faster more complete burn (and possibly some pinging). Although that is largely irrelevant because I'm fairly certain hydrogen doesn't act as a catalyst.

fat chance. i think you'd crawl away with two busted knee caps and a blown tail light. you need to read the ADR's. im sure there'll be something in there about non atmostpheric gases, pressure vesels and a few other things.

as for the 'free energy' debate, i think the hydrogen and oxigen gases COULD support a BETTER combustion hense better kpl. BUT i stress again TESTING AND DYNO WORK!

The results seem to speak for themselves!
The engine management also leans out the mixture for some reason? If the Engine produces the same power, the fuel used is less, and there is no damage done to the engine? Why not? A few amps is nothing as far as the electrics are concerned. The car uses 20 amps or so just to run let alone charge a battery and power headlights etc. If I gained 30% more klm from a tank I would be stoked. For that matter 10% would even be worthwhile. I put out the challenge and so far I am impressed. I will have to make my own soon and see how we go.
The biggest concern of course is wether the engine is damaged in any way? If not? then why not? and lets make a stack of catalysers.

obviously to avoid dramas with law enforment officers the system would have to be somewhat more substantial than a glass jar. ( it was just what was available to me at the time)

i fully intend to build a better system regardless of what the skeptics wish to think.

Has anyone had anything to do with this mob or their product?

http://www.fuelfromh2o.com.au/index.html

This system appears to available in aust. now (cost is extremely high tho if u ask me)
Check out their photos page, - system is installed in an EF fairmont

Wonder if he is a fordmods member?
Does anyone know him?

looks like SA plates on the car.

Hey Steojj,

with your aguement you forget that when you add more oxygen to a chemical exothermic reaction it increases the efficiencey of the burn by a logarithmic amount. this means little extra oxygen big increase in reaction output. this is why nos works so well on motors.

See Ya