Hydrogen??

[Dryoo7]

Has anyone tried one of these conversion kits? I've heard good things from some of the mech. in my area. Any input? I've a 2008 4.0 Ranger.
Chuck

[kunar]

Has anyone tried one of these conversion kits? I've heard good things from some of the mech. in my area. Any input? I've a 2008 4.0 Ranger.
Chuck

im not gonna say anything other than search.... theres already a half a dozen threads on TRS about these....

[sun417]

I have not tried it yet but if you want to make one just go to motherearthnews.com they have talked and installed a buch over the last few years.
Good Luck:bye:

[BDAB]

not sure about about gas engines ....... but I got a friend with one on his 1985 peterbilt with a 600hp B model cat............. got 5 mpg before he installed it ...... gets over 7 mpg now ...... paid for itself in 4 months........

[samsonitesamsonite]

try the search feature every once in a while clicky (http://therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19805)

[dogboy]

Search and ye-shall find.

There are many threads about this.


Me and one of my buddies are going to be doing it to a '84 carbed 2.8L Ranger in a couple weeks. Have to get it running slightly better first.

[JoshT]

Hey man take pics on that 84, and let us know if it works well. I was thinking about trying it out on mine.

[krugford]

The whole HHO gas thing is a scam. It takes more power to create the hydrogen and oxygen than you get by burning it in an ICE. As for the claim that it "improves combustion", that would be easily identifiable in the lab. The fact that nobody has made a major announcement that would reinforce this "theory" means that it's a load of BS.

Try basic physics for a change. Do you really think that using an inefficient internal combustion engine to turn an inefficient alternator to produce the power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen will somehow produce more energy than you put in?

I can see the arguments now. It's improving combustion efficiency, the government doesn't want you to know this secret to better fuel economy, my foil hat is too tight becasue the "man" is restricting the supply of aluminum, etc, etc. Failure to properly research and educate yourself about the inner workings is not an excuse to proclaim success on the grounds of "it just works". If you were to actually learn the physics and chemistry behind what this whole scam is proposing, you'd realize how flawed this whole setup is.

[PaintBallerCali]

Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage

Readily-available chemical added to gas tank in small proportion improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by reducing the surface tension that inhibits vaporization of some fuel droplets.

Me and a few friends are trying this right now it looks like it works testing it on a few different cars so far i have noticed a slight increase 20-30 miles per tank in my 97 ranger

http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/

[reno]

Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage

Readily-available chemical added to gas tank in small proportion improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by reducing the surface tension that inhibits vaporization of some fuel droplets.

Me and a few friends are trying this right now it looks like it works testing it on a few different cars so far i have noticed a slight increase 20-30 miles per tank in my 97 ranger

http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/


Well people are claiming anywhere from 5-40mpg increases with HHO, you say you get 20-30 increase, why not combine the 2? If you get 20-30 more miles, and built an HHO, then why should you not get 25-70miles more? might be more in the middle though, like 45 more miles to the gallon,if it works, you have a patent idea, just don't forget me :icon_thumby:.

[Jason]

Try basic physics for a change. Do you really think that using an inefficient internal combustion engine to turn an inefficient alternator to produce the power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen will somehow produce more energy than you put in?



Too bad you missed Chemistry so you could take all those extra Physics classes. The "power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen" is just a few amps. About the same if not less that your cigarette lighter uses. It's not like you need a nuclear reactor in the bed of the truck to pull this off.

[RedRanger888]

Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage

Readily-available chemical added to gas tank in small proportion improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by reducing the surface tension that inhibits vaporization of some fuel droplets.

Me and a few friends are trying this right now it looks like it works testing it on a few different cars so far i have noticed a slight increase 20-30 miles per tank in my 97 ranger

http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/

Cool article

[MAKG]

Too bad you missed Chemistry so you could take all those extra Physics classes. The "power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen" is just a few amps. About the same if not less that your cigarette lighter uses. It's not like you need a nuclear reactor in the bed of the truck to pull this off.

Then, you're only getting a few dozen watts of power at most. 1 HP = 748 Watts. Physics works. Pay attention.

[reno]

But we are not looking for watts to the gallon, we are looking for more miles to the gallon. What, are we driving Electric cars and no one told me? When the electric car is all that is available, I believe we can worry more about Watts then.

[MAKG]

Umm, reno, if you aren't looking for watts, how are you going to move your vehicle?

If you get no power from combustion, you're wasting your fuel. By definition.

[reno]

Never mind, I was reffering to watts in an electrical state of mind only and you were using in a physics state of mind. 1W=V X A (Ohms law).

And a KWatt=~1.35hp

[samsonitesamsonite]

The whole HHO gas thing is a scam. It takes more power to create the hydrogen and oxygen than you get by burning it in an ICE. As for the claim that it "improves combustion", that would be easily identifiable in the lab. The fact that nobody has made a major announcement that would reinforce this "theory" means that it's a load of BS.

Try basic physics for a change. Do you really think that using an inefficient internal combustion engine to turn an inefficient alternator to produce the power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen will somehow produce more energy than you put in?

I can see the arguments now. It's improving combustion efficiency, the government doesn't want you to know this secret to better fuel economy, my foil hat is too tight becasue the "man" is restricting the supply of aluminum, etc, etc. Failure to properly research and educate yourself about the inner workings is not an excuse to proclaim success on the grounds of "it just works". If you were to actually learn the physics and chemistry behind what this whole scam is proposing, you'd realize how flawed this whole setup is.

Man If you havn't done it yourself, then don't knock it. I have done it on 2 different cars now, and it DOES work.

[krugford]

Got proof? How about a simplified chemical equation showing the inputs and outputs of this HHO gas mixing with a gasoline/air mixture and burning?

How about something as simple as:

Fuel+Air => H2O+CO2+N2+Energy

Let's let fuel be isooctane (C8H18) and Hydrogen gas and let's combine it with O2 and air (O2 and N2 essentially)
Surely you can either work out the constants and energy release for complete combustion or find them online somewhere. I'm not asking for a detailed analysis or anything, but I'd like to see where all the extra energy is coming from. Because I can sure as heck tell you where it's not coming from. It can't be that hard.

That fact that you've paid money for one of these devices is sad.

[Dryoo7]

Well I guess I got some answers. I do have a local mech. that has a home made set up on his car. He said it seems to work well enough. He has not done a mpg check, and he does drive a little 4 cyl. car. He said he's got better bottom end with the set up. I am not a mech. and certainly not a wizkid math guy. I've not spent money on these things but am intrested in anything that will inprove my mpg.
Chuck

[BrianS]

I'll be doing some tests on my own vehicle in the conversion area of this forum. I really don't think this is going to work, but I'm going to try it anyway just to finally disprove or prove it for once. The people that say it doesn't work....have never used it....and the people that use it swear it works. Sounds a little strange to me. :stirthepot:

[Jason]

Then, you're only getting a few dozen watts of power at most. 1 HP = 748 Watts. Physics works. Pay attention.

You seem to be incapable of wrapping your head around this concept. You are only separating the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the molecule. This takes very little power. FAR LESS power than you would yield by simply burning the hydrogen. Think of it as pumping hydrogen from one holding area to the engine. Essentially that's all it is.

Also, "pay attention"? Try using real logic and using your mind to see things from both sides before you try to play teacher. The fact that you are listed here as a tech adviser is starting to make me question the site as a whole. You are supposed to advise on facts, not opinions and lackluster attempts at sarcasm and humor.

[krugford]

You seem to be incapable of wrapping your head around this concept. You are only separating the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the molecule. This takes very little power. FAR LESS power than you would yield by simply burning the hydrogen. Think of it as pumping hydrogen from one holding area to the engine. Essentially that's all it is.

Also, "pay attention"? Try using real logic and using your mind to see things from both sides before you try to play teacher. The fact that you are listed here as a tech adviser is starting to make me question the site as a whole. You are supposed to advise on facts, not opinions and lackluster attempts at sarcasm and humor.

Do you even know what combustion means? What you are proposing is a device that puts out more energy than you put in. Burning hydrogen in the presence of oxygen results in nothing but water and energy in an ideal sense. That energy you get out is equal to the energy you put in to turn the water into hydrogen and oxygen in the first place. The real world is far less accomodating.

[Jason]

What you seem to miss is that water is a "fuel" in this process. The energy being released is held within the water much in the way that gasoline holds energy that is released.

Why is the pro side of this debate perpetually difficult for some people here to understand?

[MAKG]

What you seem to miss is that water is a "fuel" in this process. The energy being released is held within the water much in the way that gasoline holds energy that is released.

Why is the pro side of this debate perpetually difficult for some people here to understand?

This is astonishing.

Electrolysis means taking the oxygen atom out of the water.

Combustion means putting it back in (well, a different oxygen atom, but they are all the same).

It's really that simple.

You're asserting it's a perpetual motion machine. You're severely wrong.

[BrianS]

You're asserting it's a perpetual motion machine. You're severely wrong.

So are you saying that solar power is a perpetual type machine? If anything it's closer because you don't have to keep adding water to make it run. From what I've read your not creating or destroying any energy...H2O stores the energy and your basically cracking it open to release his energy. It's that simple. I'm not saying it works at all so no flames yet. Just read about and after all is said and done, try it, if it doesn't work your out maybe 25-30$ and you know he answer so you don't have to prove it to anymore. Just don't knock it when you've never tried it or at least seen it run in person and talked to whoever owned the vehicle.

[bobbywalter]

Has anyone tried one of these conversion kits? I've heard good things from some of the mech. in my area. Any input? I've a 2008 4.0 Ranger.
Chuck

no luck yet....but still tryin:black_eye:


i am a glutton...

[MAKG]

So are you saying that solar power is a perpetual type machine? If anything it's closer because you don't have to keep adding water to make it run. From what I've read your not creating or destroying any energy...H2O stores the energy and your basically cracking it open to release his energy. It's that simple. I'm not saying it works at all so no flames yet. Just read about and after all is said and done, try it, if it doesn't work your out maybe 25-30$ and you know he answer so you don't have to prove it to anymore. Just don't knock it when you've never tried it or at least seen it run in person and talked to whoever owned the vehicle.

If you use solar to do the electrolysis, explain how your Rube Goldberg machine is better than a solar powered electric vehicle.

Energy in = energy out. Period. Full stop. End of story. A few dozen watts from a solar cell is comparable to the power you get from whacking off in the driver's seat.

[AllanD]

Too bad you missed Chemistry so you could take all those extra Physics classes. The "power required to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen" is just a few amps. About the same if not less that your cigarette lighter uses. It's not like you need a nuclear reactor in the bed of the truck to pull this off.

You must be just a little bit Special (See the Stephen Lynch song for a definition)

a SMALL ammount of energy only produces a small ammount of hydrogen
Gaseous hydrogen at Standard temperature and pressure contains very little energy.

People think of hydrogen being so energetic... in truth it really isn't

People think of space launches and of the Hindenburg.

The vst majority of the energy released in the hindenburg
disaster was actually the nitrocellulose in the paint reacting
with the pigment Aluminum flake) in the paint... NOT the
200millions liters of hydrogen gas...

Believe it or not even liquid hydrogen sn't terribly energetic compared to other things, for Example NASA is considering using cryogenic methane
instead of LH2 in the next generation of manned spacelift vehicles.

No Methane isn't more energetic by WEIGHT, but it is more energetic by VOLUME so the savings of making a smaller (lighter) Fuel tank is justification alone, add to this that cryogenic methane doesn't require NEARLY as much insulation results in a further savings.

hydrogen burns clean but it's lack of density is it's biggest problem for terrestrial fuel use.

So even with a freakin HUGE fuel tank you wouldn't get much range.

TANSTAAFL.

AD

[reno]

There is no such thing as a perpetual machine. Why is it HHO is ineffective and gasoline is effective. There is WAY more energy used in making gasoline. If very little energy can be used to add to a high energy made fuel and get greater mileage,cooler running engine and better bottom end power,then why not? True, takes approx. 30 amps @ 12v = 360ftlbs of power. Or 3.6 HP, far better than gas Alone.
Now please Makg, instead of having fun and using sarcasm, use advise where we would be going wrong and guide us in the right direction. Something tells me that when enough reports come out and it is considered official that HHO is working phenominally better than anyone could hope for, you will blasting all naysayers. Now please stay on a professional level with this. I for one will try it, if it works it works, if I get an additional 10-25mpg, that will be fine with me.

John

[MAKG]

The reason gasoline is effective is because MOST of the energy invovled in making it was done hundreds of millions of years ago by photosynthesis and geologic processes. If you tried to make it from carbon dioxide and water, then you would be doing what this "HHO" scam is claiming.

And where on Earth did you get 10-25 MPG? Based on 50 HP to cruise on the highway, a MUCH more reasonable estimate is 0.5 MPG, assuming the hydrogen is made somewhere besides your vehicle (and assuming perfect efficiencies with your 30A estimate -- it's probably dozens of times lower in reality). It's NEGATIVE if it is made on-board.

[AllanD]

There is no such thing as a perpetual machine. Why is it HHO is ineffective and gasoline is effective. There is WAY more energy used in making gasoline. If very little energy can be used to add to a high energy made fuel and get greater mileage,cooler running engine and better bottom end power,then why not? True, takes approx. 30 amps @ 12v = 360ftlbs of power. Or 3.6 HP, far better than gas Alone.
Now please Makg, instead of having fun and using sarcasm, use advise where we would be going wrong and guide us in the right direction. Something tells me that when enough reports come out and it is considered official that HHO is working phenominally better than anyone could hope for, you will blasting all naysayers. Now please stay on a professional level with this. I for one will try it, if it works it works, if I get an additional 10-25mpg, that will be fine with me.

John

Gasoline isn't MADE, it's simply seperated out of a mix of complex hydrocarbons

SOME gasoline is made by "Cracking" (catalytically) heavier (longer chain)
hydrocarbons, but in this process absolutely ENORMOUS quantities of
butane (C4H10) and Propane (C3H8) and considerable Methane and Ethane
are also produced.

The Methane and ethane are piped into houses and electrical generation plants as "natural gas" along with "natural" methane and ethane.
Butane produced in US refineries is mixed into commercial "propane"
in varying proportions depending on season and climate as well as being mixed into "winter mix" gasoline.

Butane has a fairly high boiling point and the further north you live the more butane is probably in your gasoline during the winter.

In propane butane is mainly added in southern states because compared to propane it is "high boiling", so if you live in Minnesota your propane is proably pretty pure, while your gasoline is likely "high volotility" due to it's butane content (it aids winter starting)
Remember that "propane" is largely used as a "slang term" because the actual label on the container is "Liquid petroleum gas" which can be any of a variety of mixes.

But in the end not much actual energy is put into the combined process of exploration, drilling, pumping, refining and delivery to market.

your arguement is like saying there is WAY more energy used by a railroad locomotive than is used by a geo metro, but in proportion to the work accomplished there is NO comparison.

Producing hydrogen from anything is Endo-energetic.
It takes more energy to seperate hydrogen (NOT found "loose" in nature)
from whatever molecule it may be bound up in than you'll get from burning it.

Making hydrogen is like building a ski lift to the top of an enormous mountain then claiming that because it takes no energy to slide downhill that the entire process is "efficient".

It isn't and even if the other 6billion people on the planet report otherwise
I'm not changing my understanding of reality to agree to a common dilusion
or a lie.

you sir may make your own choice.

But I'll suggest that you have obviously drank deeply of the kool-aid (Jonestown Koolaid) and probably had a second glass
And are likely standing in line to ask for a third glass and the receipe.

AND I suspect you are probably a close relative of "Bagdad Bob".

AD