They claim it has "higher octane" but really HHO has no octane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating it takes carbon to make octane and HHO is Hydrogen and oxygen with no carbon. Odd that they would use an octane number.

Something else I've read is that HHO is more flamable then gas and has a lower flashpoint.

 

^ from the wiki page you linked: "This does not mean, however, that the gasoline actually contains these hydrocarbons in these proportions. It simply means that it has the same autoignition resistance as the described mixture."

The octane rating is a rating which can be applied to any fuel, regardless if it contains octane or not. Octane is just used as the "scale".

If you look downwards on that page, it actually mentions hydrogen. It has a very low octane number, but as a minor blending factor it can actually increase knock resistance.

 

^^^ yeah but the density makes a difference!


I've been through this in March (wow news travels slowly in the mighty usa) with KT and the boys... we were gonna subject my 1.4L engine to this, however, timing must be PERFECT, and also current to provide necessary power to the electrolyte process... think of it this way: ONE backfire, bye bye engine (which would have been OK, f*** the 1.4)

On fuel injected cars... wow you guys are brave!

Then again, I've subjected my Pony's to diesel, methyl hydrate, methanol, OIL (10w30), E85, and brake fluid... all with varying degrees of success! The Diesel test was teh best... Spikie saw what happened, 1/2 the HP, 5x the smoke! BUT SHE RAN!!

Curse high compression engines! Soon i'll be a b**** to RON 89!

1973 FUEL CRISIS FTW!!!

 

Heres an article I found interesting

http://hydrogenkitscam.topconsumerproductreviews.com/

 

I finally had some time to read through this..

Supercow, what radu is sayinga about the alternator is correct. "..the mechanical power it consumes is proportional to the current you draw from it." Exactly. It doesn't matter if it's always spinning. The more load you put on it (amps), the more power it consumes. This is why it will never be feasible to run a car on just water.

However, I think with the right tuning, using the alternator to create the HHO gas from a reservoir of baking soda+water, being used in ADDITION to gasoline, could be more effecient than running on just gasoline alone. Isn't THIS the point we should be arguing? You can never "add" energy, you can simply "free up" energy, by making things more effecient. And all of these arguments need to remain relative to running the car on just gasoline.

What happens to this gas as it enters the engine and mixes with gasoline? And how are you going to account for this in tuning?

 

^ Agreed. But I think if someone wants to go down that route, he should first try to obtain HHO in a tank and try to make the car run with that (and tune it). If it turns out the mileage increase is significant (while using only small amounts of HHO), then you can go ahead with the water->HHO electrolysis system. If it doesn't work, you've saved yourself the trouble of obtaining/installing all the electrolysis stuff.

 

Don't you think this technology lies on OPEC's shelf?

Come on now, Plymouth made a NUCLEAR powered car in the 60's... can you imagine what Al-Quaeda would do with that, given a free run in the market?

You are all fools of the highest calibre.

There's a saying in Polish , "obudzilez sie z rekiem w nocniku"


First one to decipher that gets a gallon of gas, Premium.

owned.gif because we have been, by our own selfish needs.

Scurry ants, scurry!!

 

oil companies hold a vast majority of patents for alternative energy. Its very simple, ill give you a 100 million dollars to never speak of what you created again. Or you find the person dead.

sad but true, im jsut waiting on the gestapo effect on people making bio desiel because the government isnt getting their money...

 

"Plymouth made a NUCLEAR powered car in the 60's"
LOL you've been drinking too much

I think you're all a wee bit too paranoid. If these technologies are so within reach of the current human knowledge, why don't other countries (with no oil companies) develop them? Smaller yet very well developed countries, like some in Europe. If some of this technology was "available" as early as the 70s and 80s, why didn't the Russians develop them, it's not like they had oil companies?

And another thing, the military would be directly concerned with some of these technologies (their vehicles/tanks run on oil too), and the military always has VERY strong research and development resources, so why don't they develop them? Are the oil companies threatening the army too?

 

it was the CAR that was drinking too much...too much tequila...lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car

but back to water...

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/13/genepax...l-cell-vehicle/