# Hho Experiment



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

After seeing a video posted on a Water4Gas website, several of us began looking at this at work. We work at a Nuclear plant so I guess you could say we are a bunch of tech nerds (and Nuclear Physicists). There has been an explosion of interest in these generators and now they are all over E-Bay and the web. There are also many testimonials on their operation with varying claims of increased Gas mileage.

Fox News in Norfolk Virginia followed a gentleman who decided to install one of these units and after a little more than a week went back to see how he was doing. He averaged a 100% increase in mileage per gallon. where he was getting 20 mpg on the highway he now gets about 40 mpg.

Well we are going to build one of these and install it in a 2005 F-150, 5.4L V-8 and monitor the results. If the results are favorable then another one will be built and installed in my truck. a 2004 F-250 with a 6.8L V-10. You know what is going to happen then.

It will be tested under normal driving conditions and then, our 2005 Sydney 31RQS will be hitched up and we'll see what happens then. Personnally if I can go from 7-8 mpg to 14-16 mpg (currently better mpg than not towing) I will be exstatic.

a quick search of HHO will give you more info than you want.

WVEC Water4gas report

Can you imagine the impact, what would happen if a large number of people started using 1/2 the fuel?

I will let you know how this works for us as soon as we get going with it.

Eric


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

I think we would all be interested in hearing about this Eric. Make sure you record the other material useage that go into it. Water is relatively inexpensive







(unless it requires distilled







). However, I'm sure there are other costs, because splitting Hydrogen from Oxygen is a very energy intensive process


----------



## Sayonara (Jul 23, 2007)

Good luck and keep us posted. Will it work with oil (diesel) ????


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

One other thing to mention. I'd recommend that you get one of the devices to monitor temps, etc. (There was another thread on this). That way you could check before and after mods to ensure it isn't doing something that will cause trouble over the long run.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

This falls under the "seems to good to be true" type of story. I'm excited to see Eric will be testing/installing this on his own.

Where do I sign up to have my truck converted, once this is a go...


----------



## webeopelas (Mar 11, 2006)

Go to HHOforums.com. Lots of good info on catalysts, things to watch out for and people trying to make the most efficient (most gas for least amps) generators. General consensus is water4gas is a minimal/beginner design. Easily improved upon.

I don't believe the doubling. Many on the forums have reported increases, but when somebody reports doubling, it usually means their overhead is way off or they drove 3-5 mi, refilled the tank, and extrapolated the mileage.

Good luck. I am about ready to pull the trigger and try it on mine. Very little out there for diesel improvements. Some say it worked, others say it didn't.


----------



## OutbackPM (Sep 14, 2005)

I am with Jim on this. It seems to good to be true.

What I would like to know is. How much power is consumed in the electrolysis ( thats the max that can be given back in the combustion). What is the nature or physics of H2 and extra O2 in the intake that make for an improved burn that offset and more the electrolysis demands.

I though with lean burn technology in modern cars there was not much left unburnt for this to have an impact.

I grant there is alot of attention all over the net on this from ordinary looking people so I too will watch how egregg57 gets along with this. If it is true where have the car companies been not just here in the US but all over the word too.

Along these lines I have heard that propane injection into diesels improve efficiency but I have only seen these relative to a performance adder.


----------



## GlenninTexas (Aug 11, 2004)

I've looked into these units a bit. The EPA tested 42 of them and concluded they did not create substancial mileage improvements.
I think the limiter or biggest variable is how much hydrogen that can be produced to be injected into the fuel supply.This is a realtime process, as you drive the hyrdogen is generated. I would suspect that a vechile with a very efficient engine (uses less gasoline) would benefit more than one that requires more gas, simply because the ratio of hyrdogen to gas would (likely) be higher.

Regards, Glenn

Looking forward to seeing the test results. Good luck.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

OutbackPM said:


> I am with Jim on this. It seems to good to be true.
> 
> What I would like to know is. How much power is consumed in the electrolysis ( thats the max that can be given back in the combustion). What is the nature or physics of H2 and extra O2 in the intake that make for an improved burn that offset and more the electrolysis demands.
> 
> ...


Lean burn is good for fuel economy, but BAD for emissions. 1/2 of the problem with Diesels is their NOx emissions (Diesels are lean burn unless your foot is really in it). Europe cares about C02 and regulates it via gas taxes. The US used to care mainly about NOx (and other "pollutants") and therefore choose tighter emission regulations.

As for adding performance, this works if you can downsize the engine whcih will get you some improvement in fuel economy. Still there, we are talking percentage points of fuel economy, not doubling it.









I'll still be interested to see how things turn out. Maybe those Nuclear Physicists can help us all out!


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

We did notice notes on heat generation. We will be monitoring temperature generated with a 100 ohm platinum thermocouple. There is also several different construction techniques. Some utilize schedule 40 PVC pipe, some Stainless Steel.

The easiest (but really clunky looking) is the system that uses mason jars. We are looking at more of a tank configuration with drain and fill ports with a PVC bubbler. This makes water changes easier. Also we are interested in the length of time the HHO generation lasts before the water needs to be changed out. A few different sources say about 100 hours of operation.

I suppose the best part of this is we are able to make this with material that would otherwise be thrown out. And since the generator is designed to be easily installed or removed, if it doesn't work as well as we hope it'll just be removed.

As far as power consumed the 12 VDC over the plates is switched on after the car is running and taken from the 12 Volt system (Alternator/Battery). Additionally we are going to be installing a heater in the tank. Since we are approaching the winter months we do not want the water freezing. That would be bad.

So, all things considered, if it doesn't give any real benefit then it was a fun experiment. If it does, well, that'll be a lot of fun too.

I am skeptical myself but the large number of personal accounts on forums, the tremendous positive feed back for different variations of this type of unit on E-bay peaks my curiousity. Additionally it was already proven to work years ago in differnt application including a cutting torch that ran on HHO.

All this being said, if "IF" it does work and it works significantly well while towing then I am going to use it.

We'll just have to see what happens.

Eric


----------



## OutbackPM (Sep 14, 2005)

With the use of an electrolyte make sure that this cannot get into the system through the tube because is would be corrosive to the rest of the system. Especially the aluminum parts. Is there some kind of filter that would allow gas but not droplets of water/electrolyte to pass through? Its a littel like connecting your battery breather to the inlet of the engine because thats just H2 and O2 the same. Just a thought so you don't cause more damage than its worth.


----------



## Rubrhammer (Nov 27, 2006)

I talked with a guy who had made one and has it on a siverado 5.3. He went up to 26 mpg on mixed driving from 20mpg. One problem limiting him was the exhaust was cleaner and the computor reading the O2 sensors was enriching his f/a mixture once he passed a certain amount of enhncement. So he was looking for a way to get by his O2 sensors. Just something to look for.
Bob


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

egregg57 said:


> ......We'll just have to see what happens.


We're all rooting for you...go Eric go!!


----------



## MJRey (Jan 21, 2005)

I'll be curious to see the results since the basic physics seem to say it can't work. It's supposed to work by using the engine driving the alternator to generate energy to split the H2O into H2 and O. Then you put the H2 back into the engine to make more energy. But for this to work as advertised you would have to get more energy out than you put in which can't happen. I see this discussed on several other sites and people swear that it works but I've never seen a real study that showed it working. I bet if you add one of those tornado things to the inlet the results will be really impressive!


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

MJRey said:


> I'll be curious to see the results since the basic physics seem to say it can't work. It's supposed to work by using the engine driving the alternator to generate energy to split the H2O into H2 and O. Then you put the H2 back into the engine to make more energy. But for this to work as advertised you would have to get more energy out than you put in which can't happen. I see this discussed on several other sites and people swear that it works but I've never seen a real study that showed it working. I bet if you add one of those tornado things to the inlet the results will be really impressive!


I am not sure what you mean in regards to basic physics saying it can't work. We're talking about using 12VDC from your battery to supply power across some plates in an electrolyte. That causes electrolysis to happen and creates gas. it has nothing to o with the engine providing any power. The engine does need to run to keep the alternator going to maintain voltage at the battery.

It does work, I just built one in our Maintenance and test Equipment lab here at the plant. I am a Nuclear Instrumentation and Controls technician and am on shift and waiting for a job to start...a very late one by the way. I should have been home 2 hours ago.

Anyway we have plenty of scrap material here and it took me about 4 hours to construct a basic unit. 7 4"x4" 316L stainless steel plates Teflon insulators, some bolts, 2 10-12 awg lugs, 4 feet of 10 awg wire, a Teflon jar, 2 pints of distilled water, 1 teaspoon of bicarbonate of soda.

I connected a 125 VDC Sorensen power supply to the negative and positive lugs, submerged the plates just to their top edge, connected a Fluke clamp-on Ammeter and applied approximately 13 VDC and dialed the Sorensen up to about 20 amps. The water emitted fine bubbles and what appeared to be a thin mist, which I believe, and am told in a couple different documents, is Hydrogen.

A cars 12V system runs at 20 amps...soooo why not?!

With a Keithley DVM I am reading about 2.4 VDC drop from plate to plate. I have sealed some of the gas in another Teflon container. And I am getting the nerve to try to light it. But I am going to wait till I get home to do that. I don't think security would appreciate it.

My experiment is sort of blown because a guy in Colorado already put a 7 plate Generator into his F-250 and is getting 20 mpg.

So at this point, I am going to put a decent one together and I am going to install it.

If it doesn't work I have lost nothing.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

MJRey said:


> I'll be curious to see the results since the basic physics seem to say it can't work. It's supposed to work by using the engine driving the alternator to generate energy to split the H2O into H2 and O. Then you put the H2 back into the engine to make more energy. But for this to work as advertised you would have to get more energy out than you put in which can't happen. I see this discussed on several other sites and people swear that it works but I've never seen a real study that showed it working. I bet if you add one of those tornado things to the inlet the results will be really impressive!


If you just try to turn pure H2O into O2 and H2, this is very true (Those darn laws of physics are pretty determined). I beleive that the method of accomplishing it with less power is by not trying to do it with pure water, but rather performing a chemical reaction to "assist" the H2O in coming apart (Eric, please correct me if I am wrong). This is why I was asking about the consumption of other materials in engine operation. If you account for that in your operating cost and you are still ahead (and meeting emission laws), then it is a net save.


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

Not going to work as advertised.

Energy is neither lost or created but only changes states.

So the H and O2 split by electrolysis takes energy - yes it is from the battery but the battery must be charged by the alternator that must work harder due to the new load on the battery and thus the engine uses power to turn the alternator rather then drive the wheels.

The energy transfer during the oxidization of the hydrogen from H back to H20 should result in a little less energy available to turn the wheel then was available had the water not been split as there is some heat loss in the process.


----------



## OutbackPM (Sep 14, 2005)

CamperAndy said:


> Not going to work as advertised.
> 
> Energy is neither lost or created but only changes states.
> 
> ...


 CamperAndy I agree with your synopsis. The only explanation would be that it help burns the fuel more efficiently than before but improving more than a few % seems unlikely in a well tuned modern engine.

It would need a better explanation of the mechanism to be fully convincing it works and is not a quirk in the measuring of MPG.


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

I was expecting more responses to this but I forgot to say in my last post.

You would get better performance out of your engine injecting water directly, rather then waste time and energy trying to break the water down.

The injection of water, cools the intake charge, which increases compression and the extra mass adds power during the expansion portion of the cycle.


----------



## webeopelas (Mar 11, 2006)

Here is why I think this is possible:

First, we can all agree that adding H to the fuel system can increase fuel economy. Same concept as piping propane or CNG. If we could safely compress hydrogen from say a home electrolysis machine, this concept would have more people jumping on the bandwagon.

The problem comes from trying to create the H on the fly. I am not an electrical engineer, but I believe the amount of electricity produced by an alternator vs the HP needed to turn it, is not linear. Your MPG does not improve when you turn off your lights and radio. So there may be excess electrical capacity for a small amount of HP.

If you can create enough H to increase your MPG (which could be possible if it increases the efficiency of the fuel burn) while staying within that excess capacity, I think this can help.

As I said earlier, I do not believe the MPG doubling. If I get it to work on my diesel, I expect maybe 2-3 MPG. Which is the same some claim I can get by buying their $250 electronic module. So if I can build an HHO generator for $100 and get a few MPG, I am ahead both ways.

Whenever somebody dismisses the idea out of hand by "conservation of energy" argument, I never see the calculations. Show me how the HP requirement per amp increases faster than the possible increase from the addition of HHO, to include the possible increase in efficiency of the fuel burned. Not easy to do for the average guy, so instead of coming across as an "expert" and dismissing the whole idea, state your skepticism as just that.

There are many articles out there that state if every vehicle could increase their MPG by 1-3 MPG, it would have a huge effect on the oil market. HHO just might be one of the ways to do it.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

webeopelas said:


> .....
> Your MPG does not improve when you turn off your lights and radio. So there may be excess electrical capacity for a small amount of HP.
> ...


Uh, actually it does....








You won't be able to measure it, but the automakers can. In fact LED tail lights improve fuel economy by reducing electrical load. The EPA test specifies that brake lights must be functioning during certification as there are stops during the cycle and it does effect the fuel economy measured.

Again, you won't be able to measure it, so don't drive around at night with your headlights off to save gas.









As disappointing as it is, the basic laws of physics do work and everything has losses. Engines don't operate on Quantum mechanics, so the rules governing them haven't changed in a long time. That's not to say that there might not be realitevly inexpensive ways to reduce operating cost, but please don't think you are violating Sir Issac Newton's laws.









I have been dealing with these type of discussions every day at work, and although it can seem frusterating, it's best to try to use them to your benefit, not fight them. Heck, that's an engineer's job: to take the discoveries of scientists and create practical applications that are useful, so without those laws, I'd be out of a job!


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

Okay lets do some math just so it all helps the understanding of the problem.

You get 10 mpg and you want a 1 mpg improvement, sounds easy right? We are going 60 mph so we burn 6 gallons an hour.

Well you have to effectively add the equivalent power that 1/10 (6/10 per hour) of a gallon of fuel would provide (more or less). We will use Diesel fuel which on average has 130,000 BTU per gallon so we need to add 13,000 btu's of energy to the mix or 78,000 btu an hour to get the 1 mpg increase.

78,000 btu's burned per hour equal 30.627 horsepower or 22,839 watts per hour.

Hydrogen at room temperature and pressure has an energy density of .01079 mj/l (mega joule/liter) and those 22,839 watts would require 82.222 mj of energy or are you sitting down - 7620 liters of hydrogen or just over 2 liters per second from the electrolysis system.

At that rate I have no need to see if the alternator can even come close to keeping up. I am sure I rounded a few numbers but not so much that it makes the data not valid.

Good luck.


----------



## jcat67 (Aug 8, 2008)

CamperAndy said:


> Okay lets do some math just so it all helps the understanding of the problem.
> 
> You get 10 mpg and you want a 1 mpg improvement, sounds easy right? We are going 60 mph so we burn 6 gallons an hour.
> 
> ...










Now I know who wrote those Physics books.......Wow!!


----------



## Scoutr2 (Aug 21, 2006)

We're splitting hairs, here. Can it work? Probably. Does it work as well as advertised? If it did, we wouldn't be discussing it here. We'd be waiting in the mile long lines to buy the device and have it installed in our vehicles.

The fact is - if it worked as well as the claims, manufacturers would be putting them in production cars. They are required to meet the ever-increasing CAFE ratings each year - and they are fined by the Feds (and some states) if they don't meet the ratings, on average, across their product lines.

But not even one single car manufacturer offers this technology as an option.

So I think that this is our answer as to how well it works. (And we haven't even discussed what the long term effects of water vapor on engine components.) But hey, everyone needs a hobby. And if yours is tweaking things under the hood to eke out a couple more mpg's, then go for it. There's a lot to be said for self satisfaction!

Just my $.02.

Mike


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

anyone else thinking airplane/treadmill about now?


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

You know a tread mill is a very good analogy. You burn a lot of energy but you go no where.


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

CamperAndy said:


> You know a tread mill is a very good analogy. You burn a lot of energy but you go no where.


...you know darn well that's not what I'm talking about.


----------



## hazmat456 (Jul 26, 2007)

wont work, that would be like perpetual motion. Hydrogen is nothing more than a battery, you can never get out as much energy as you put into it. If you could someone would have made the hydrogen engine connected it to a alternator to make even more hydrogen to feed the motor, get it?


----------



## webeopelas (Mar 11, 2006)

CamperAndy said:


> Okay lets do some math just so it all helps the understanding of the problem.
> 
> You get 10 mpg and you want a 1 mpg improvement, sounds easy right? We are going 60 mph so we burn 6 gallons an hour.
> 
> ...


Okay, but you still haven't accounted for the additional energy gained by a more efficient burning of the fuel, thereby getting more BTU's out of it.

If the hydrogen acts as a catalyst, not just a fuel replacement, it can help.


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

webeopelas said:


> Okay, but you still haven't accounted for the additional energy gained by a more efficient burning of the fuel, thereby getting more BTU's out of it.
> 
> If the hydrogen acts as a catalyst, not just a fuel replacement, it can help.


Correct, but like Andy said, there are a lot of ways to improve fuel economy. The automakers are looking under every stone, but the % gains by each development are relatively small. A 10% efficiency gain would be huge for an automaker!

I think the best thing, is to sit back and see what Eric is able to achieve with this. As I said, I deal with these issues daily, but I'm always interested to hear from a real person on what they were able to accomplish (That means I'm not going to trust just any web blog claims but would trust an outbacker!







)


----------



## webeopelas (Mar 11, 2006)

Nathan said:


> Okay, but you still haven't accounted for the additional energy gained by a more efficient burning of the fuel, thereby getting more BTU's out of it.
> 
> If the hydrogen acts as a catalyst, not just a fuel replacement, it can help.


Correct, but like Andy said, there are a lot of ways to improve fuel economy. The automakers are looking under every stone, but the % gains by each development are relatively small. A 10% efficiency gain would be huge for an automaker!

I think the best thing, is to sit back and see what Eric is able to achieve with this. As I said, I deal with these issues daily, but I'm always interested to hear from a real person on what they were able to accomplish (That means I'm not going to trust just any web blog claims but would trust an outbacker!







)
[/quote]

Fair enough, but I am bit hopeful, because my Brother in Law has done this on his truck and gained 2-3 mpg. He is in Alaska, so I can't go check it out myself, but if knowing somebody in person or by a web blog is the ruler, he wins.


----------



## Fire44 (Mar 6, 2005)

I don't know if it will work.....I don't even understand half of what was posted....BUT!!!!!

Eric, if it works, I would like to be the first to put my name on the list to get one!!! I will be more than happy to drive up, with a case or 5 of your favorite adult beverage and a reasonable amount of cash to cover any costs you have.......

Just thought I would throw that out!!!

Gary


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Well we'll know soon. We are building one and trying to document everything. There is so much controversy over this stupid thing!! I want to know for my self! I have a report 6 sheets long of technical notation on the stuff its properties..etc.

The standard rules says ahhh...no. Sounds good but no, it won't work.

Then there is a lot of junk on the web. And every now and again there is someone with test equipment, and meters, indicators checking the operation of a specific model of HHO generator in a vehicle, fitted with instrumentation that begs the question.

So we have the parts. We are a bunch of smart people here at our local Nuclear Plant and we are just going to find out if this is crap or gold.

And Gary, if it works...I'll buy you the beer!!

Eric


----------



## davel1957 (Mar 25, 2008)

Eric,
I say go for it Man! I have my doubts about it and in theroy it seems like it won't really work, but I'm still hopeful that you may get some results that may surprise me. Let us all know as soon as you can what the results are!


----------



## 3LEES (Feb 18, 2006)

DaveL1957 said:


> Eric,
> I say go for it Man! I have my doubts about it and in theroy it seems like it won't really work, but I'm still hopeful that you may get some results that may surprise me. Let us all know as soon as you can what the results are!


Now THAT'S the "Outbacker" spirit that we strive to achieve!!!

None of that negativism in here........

Good luck Eric. I hope you make a bundle!

Dan


----------



## Oregon_Camper (Sep 13, 2004)

Fire44 said:


> I don't know if it will work.....I don't even understand half of what was posted....BUT!!!!!
> 
> Eric, if it works, I would like to be the first to put my name on the list to get one!!! I will be more than happy to drive up, with a case or 5 of your favorite adult beverage and a reasonable amount of cash to cover any costs you have.......
> 
> ...


Hey...see post #5. I think that guy was first in line.


----------



## Fire44 (Mar 6, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> I don't know if it will work.....I don't even understand half of what was posted....BUT!!!!!
> 
> Eric, if it works, I would like to be the first to put my name on the list to get one!!! I will be more than happy to drive up, with a case or 5 of your favorite adult beverage and a reasonable amount of cash to cover any costs you have.......
> 
> ...


Hey...see post #5. I think that guy was first in line.








[/quote]

You are on the wrong coast!!!! Everything would have to be re-engineered backwards to work out there!!!


----------



## Fire44 (Mar 6, 2005)

Oregon_Camper said:


> I don't know if it will work.....I don't even understand half of what was posted....BUT!!!!!
> 
> Eric, if it works, I would like to be the first to put my name on the list to get one!!! I will be more than happy to drive up, with a case or 5 of your favorite adult beverage and a reasonable amount of cash to cover any costs you have.......
> 
> ...


Hey...see post #5. I think that guy was first in line.








[/quote]

You are on the wrong coast!!!! Everything would have to be re-engineered backwards to work out there!!!


----------



## GlenninTexas (Aug 11, 2004)

egregg57 said:


> We are a bunch of smart people here at our local Nuclear Plant and we are just going to find out if this is crap or gold.


Can you get Homer Simpson's autograph for me?

Regards, Glenn


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

egregg57 said:


> The standard rules says ahhh...no. Sounds good but no, it won't work.


In our heart we all want it to work but in our mind we know the answer and the quote above is the truth.


----------



## MJRey (Jan 21, 2005)

webeopelas said:


> Okay, but you still haven't accounted for the additional energy gained by a more efficient burning of the fuel, thereby getting more BTU's out of it.
> 
> If the hydrogen acts as a catalyst, not just a fuel replacement, it can help.


Correct, but like Andy said, there are a lot of ways to improve fuel economy. The automakers are looking under every stone, but the % gains by each development are relatively small. A 10% efficiency gain would be huge for an automaker!

I think the best thing, is to sit back and see what Eric is able to achieve with this. As I said, I deal with these issues daily, but I'm always interested to hear from a real person on what they were able to accomplish (That means I'm not going to trust just any web blog claims but would trust an outbacker!







)
[/quote]

Fair enough, but I am bit hopeful, because my Brother in Law has done this on his truck and gained 2-3 mpg. He is in Alaska, so I can't go check it out myself, but if knowing somebody in person or by a web blog is the ruler, he wins.








[/quote]

Most claims of significant (>5%) mileage improvements are hard to attribute to a specific change such as the hydrogen systems. Many of the systems that I looked at say that to get any real benefit you also have to change the engine operation to adjust for the hydrogen. From what I could tell they seemed to be running the engine a bit leaner and tweaking the timing. This could easily change the fuel mileage but may not be good for the long term operation of the engine. I've yet to see any real test that I trust since there are so many variables that could affect mileage. About 10 years ago we did a test at work on a jet engine to see if a vendors claim of potential fuel consumption reductions were real. The company was claiming that their special high strength magnets placed on the fuel line going into the engine would reduce fuel usage by several percent. They had data from their own test and some supposed science to back up the theory. We were skeptical but were told to test the system anyways. We set up an engine in a test cell with instrumentation to measure all of the key parameters on the engine, primarily fuel flow. First we tested with the stock fuel line and then repeated the test at the exact same conditions with the fuel line with the magnets. There was no measurable difference in fuel flow between the tests. Unless you can do something like that most claims of mileage improvements are suspect. I was able to improve the mileage on my car by 2-3 mpg just by slowing down a bit and accelerating more slowly.

I'll watch this with interest but I don't expect any real change that couldn't easily be attributed to other causes.


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

Okay, here it is. The answer. Doug Bounds, a friend here at work, completed the unit and installed it on his 06 Silverado. It did generate gas. But we saw no real change. Actually he saw no change at all. as far as we can tell the amount of "HHO" gas generated is not significant enough to have any impact.

So it wasn't a complete failure. The unit works. But doesn't work enough. Okay not near enough. Okay the thing is junk, at least the version we tried.

I watched the Mythbusters program again where an HHO unit was built and installed and noticed thier unit looked like and created bubbles much like Dougs final version.

Since we made the HHO unit from material we had on hand, essentially junk that was being tossed we didn't spend any money and lost nothing but a bit of time goofing around with it.

Now if you built 20 of these and put them in the back of your pick-up with a couple of generators and a whole bunch of gas you might get something. That something might be Lesson 1 in Futility!

So in the end, for those interested, did the HHO experiment work? Yes and no. yes it generated gas. And No, it could not produce gas anywhere near a level that could support running a vehicle. Great science project. But that is about it.

So there you have it.... The Independent Outbackers Xtreme Lab: Fuel Alternatives edition (a small off shoot of PDX Industries) gives this one a thumbs down folks....

Next time: Removing a mired Outback from the Wolfwood Estate, How not to shift gears in a Toyota Tundra and the art of divot filling. All that and more on Independent Outbackers Xtreme Lab. ( a Small off shoot of PDX Industries)

Eric


----------



## Nathan (Jan 2, 2007)

Thanks for the update Eric! As you said, at least everyone had fun building a science experiment and luckily it didn't cost much.

So when is the next installment of Xtreme lab?








I have to see that outback removal segment!


----------



## Dan H. (Jul 14, 2006)

*WOW !* That was a great episode (I mean thread).









How about a thread on trying these ideas:

1. Using all that hydrogen, you all created, to make our Outbacks weightless when towing them. 
2. Collect the methane gas from the black waste tank and using it for heating and cooking.
3. Using the grey water tank water to flush the toilet
4. Using our tow vehicle wasted engine heat to generate steam to drive a turbine that creates AC power.​
Just some food for thought.









Thanks again.


----------



## BigBadBrain (Aug 26, 2004)

Wait, what about the down-the-highway wind turbine battery charger and fridge power device?

Or the on-board nuclear reactor for indefinite dry camping?


----------



## egregg57 (Feb 13, 2006)

BigBadBrain said:


> Wait, what about the down-the-highway wind turbine battery charger and fridge power device?
> 
> Or the on-board nuclear reactor for indefinite dry camping?


Hmmmm.. the Portable Nuclear Reactor has potential....


----------

