Anyone install a HHO set up on their Ranger yet?

[Jonboy]

Just like the post states, curious to see how you did it. I just puchased the kit to do mine from Hydrogenfrog.com I wanted to get some pointers from you others who have done.

 

[krugford]

Congratulations on being scammed. You use more energy to create the HHO gas than you get from burning it. Basic first law of thermodynamics at work.

I just checked the site. Those things are expensive! If you really wanted to try it, you should have built your own.

 

[Jonboy]

OK, first off, I know it works when properly installed. I have already seen the proof in 5 other vehicles. Secondly, I just wanted to see if anyone has put one on a ranger 2.3 yet and see how they did it opposed to how I plan to set it up,and why they did it.As far as the first basic law of thermodynamics the gas engine is living proof of that, being that they are generally only 25% effecient. I dont appreciat you coming in and telling me that I screwed up when I know that I didnt. And as far as the cost, after I figured in what all I needed to get it to work properly vs just buying the kit $45 wasnt at all bad.

 

[Winger]

I've looked into my curious nature. Looks like it could work if you could produce enough hydrogen fast enough to supplement the fuel. The problem it appears to me will be tricking the computer into leaning out the mixture enough to compensate for the hydrogen you're introducing into the system.
One method is to wire in a gizmo between the O2 sensor and the computer that allows you to adjust the signal that the computer receives from the sensor there by fooling it into leaning out the fuel mixture. That is the only way you're going to get better milleage out of this system with electronic fuel injection. I've got a carburated 2.3L in a pinto that should be easy to try this out in. Like I said the trick is to produce enough hydrogen and lean out you're fuel mixture enough to see a difference. I see claims of semi drivers making systems with 12 quart sized electrolizers hooked together to produce enough hydrogen to supplement those huge diesels. I've got one of those to so if it works good on the pinto and I can figure out how to make a difference on my 88 I think I'll try it next on my 7.3L it doesn't look like something that could hurt it. I'm spending around 180 dollars a month on gas right now to get back and forth to work and thats @ around 23 miles to the gallon on average it would take much of an improvement to make me happy.
Here's three paragraphs from a Doc. I have about dealing with the computer you should have something like this from the bunch you bought you'res from. If not check these guys out www.water4gas.com Good Luck

 

[scotts90ranger]

as long as the oxygen sensor has enough authority on the fueling of the engine, it should take into account the less gasoline needed for combustion

 

[krugford]

OK, first off, I know it works when properly installed. I have already seen the proof in 5 other vehicles. Secondly, I just wanted to see if anyone has put one on a ranger 2.3 yet and see how they did it opposed to how I plan to set it up,and why they did it.As far as the first basic law of thermodynamics the gas engine is living proof of that, being that they are generally only 25% effecient. I dont appreciat you coming in and telling me that I screwed up when I know that I didnt. And as far as the cost, after I figured in what all I needed to get it to work properly vs just buying the kit $45 wasnt at all bad.

You don't appreciate me telling you about cold hard reality? I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this scam has been around for years. Don't you think that if it actually worked and didn't violate the laws of physics that you'd see more of them around?

Explain this: You are using mechanical energy from the engine to turn the alternator. That mechanical energy is being converted to electrical energy (inefficiently, I might add) that is being used to convert the water into hydrogen and oxygen (also very inefficiently). You're then burning the hydrogen and oxygen in your inefficient engine to produce the energy required to turn the alternator. If everything was running at %100 efficiency, then you would break even. As it is, you're operating at a loss. Where is all the energy coming from to move your vehicle down the road using less gasoline?

In short:

(In a perfect world)
Water + Energy in => Hydrogen and Oxygen Out

Fuel (C8H18) +Air(N2 and O2) + H2 + O2 => H2O+CO2+N2+Energy

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source, it is a means of energy storage. In the end, it's all coming the from gas tank. Water is Hydrogen that has already been burnt. You're claiming to reverse that process, reburn it, and get more energy out than you put in. Reality doesn't work that way.

People has a distinct inability to acurately calculated gas mileage and, as a result, tend to get the results they want to see at the pump.

 

[philzilla]

 

[Jonboy]

Well, could you please give me your directions on acurately calculating gas milage. So that I can verify What I am getting now vs what I get when I install the hho setup. I am going to at least try it. If it doesnt work. Then I will at least learn something. The way I see it why not use the energy that is already in place to produce 30amps to charge the generator for fuel supplement.

Winger, There is a pretty reputable mechanic here locally that installed a 4 cell setup on his 99 powerstroke stated that he is getting 26mpg. He also has a propane setup that he uses when he makes long hauls with his camper, and said he gets approximately 2-3 more mpg when using both even pulling his camper.

 

[Winger]

Flat Earthers! Go no further THERE BE MONSTERS! The Earth is the center of the Universe! Heretics! Why everyone knows that Hydrogen has no energy content! "Well some one should tell those people in the Hindenberg"! Or these fella's in this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdVevvgM3ho

 

[Winger]

Honea Path police department outfitted 6 of there police vehicles with the HHO system wich not only produces Hydrogen but also Oxygen. The video is right there with them stating that they didn't believe it either but tried it and it works. They average between 6-8 miles per-gallon increase in mileage. http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm
Go and watch for you're selves. Then give us the Physics lessons. Newtons Law Bernouli's principle . etc. etc. etc. Looks like a lot of people have proven it works.

 

[krugford]

Wow. There's nothing new about the first video. They use a lot of electricity to produce the hydrogen and oxygen needed to run the torch. The only thing they're wrong about is the flame temperature. It does not vary like he says, that result comes from a lack of understand on flame temperature measurement. You can't just point an IR temp gun at the object you're heating and assume that the temperature read is the flame temperature. And measuring an open flame in air is extremely difficult. If it really is only a few degrees, then I'd like to see him run his hand across it...

As for the second video, they're stating a 6mpg improvement on an "SUV" without actually stating what they were getting before or what they're getting now. The only time they show numbers is when you see the computer display on the dash that's showing around 17mpg. That's pretty unimpressive with an SUV. The mayor should be kicked out of office for wasting taxpayer's money. And if you think using a website geared towards selling a product as a trusted reference, then you need to think again. They have a vested interest in selling you their product. That's where they make their money, and it's where you lose yours.

Nobody's saying that hydrogen doesn't have energy content, but the volumes you would be dealing with in an HHO system are so small, the energy input is neglible. If you're system is only drawing a hundred watts, then that's all the possible power you could get out of the hydrogen and oxygen from burning it (assuming 100% efficiency once again). One the other hand, the power required to drive a vehicle down the road is on the order of about 20kW. Seems to me installing one of these systems will make little, if any difference one way or the other.

Want to reduce your gas bill? Go buy a small car that already gets 30-40mpg and drive that everyday. That's what I'm doing and it works without violating the laws of physics.

 

[scotts90ranger]

so you're saying that the 100w it takes to break the bonds in water is all the energy that hydrogen and oxygen have together? now that doesn't make sense, it's been a good 4 years since chemestry or some of my other engineering classes that involved that stuff, but that doesn't add up either...

 

[krugford]

Why doesn't that make sense? You're storing energy in the form of hydrogen and oxygen. In a perfect world, the energy you put into creating the hydrogen and oxygen is the same amount you get out from burning said hydrogen and oxygen AND coverting the water back into it's liquid state. If you start with liquid water and end up with water vapor, you'll be operating at a net loss.

 

[noyb72]

You guys are kicking yourselves in the a$$, figure I'll jump in. The way I see it. The alternator is making the power anyway. Of course it's a net loss (if it broke even I believe you would have solved the energy crisis,) but who cares? The alternator is capable of making more electricity than than the system needs, it fact it does that often. So, if you can use that excess electricity to some good then your recouping some of that inefficiency. Even if what you do with that energy is inefficient, any return is a net gain.

Second, it takes heat to create water, but that doesn't mean that the Hydrogen is burnt. When you start with water then the energy used to create the water doesn't matter (to your wallet anyway.)

Third, I don't know who told you that 100W isn't enough to break the chemical compound, but I've referred to a MM chief that does this for a living and he says it takes way less than that, although he did say the more the merrier to a point. I trust him, if it wasn't for the wonderfull Oxygen he creates I wouldn't be able to breathe in my steel tube under water.

Waiting to be roasted..

Ron

 

[scotts90ranger]

I wasn't taking the second chemical reaction upon combustion into account...