Last edited by a moderator:
Help Support VMAX Forum:
Ok, I'll dive in on this one.
IF you can build a system that introduces any amount of Hydrogen into the combustion chamber you will get obvious performance improvements.
Do these things work? Yes they do. (http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=116)
Should you pay $100 bucks for these books - NO WAY. The information he is selling is freely available on the internet (http://www.brownsgas.com/hho_gas.html) or (http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgasfuelsaver.html) or (http://www.brownsgas.com/hhogasgenerator_fuel_saver_technology.html) from other resources, including the inventors of this stuff.
Ozzie has collected it packaged it up and created a web site to sell it to you.
PREDICTION: I can tell you right now that this thread will get a whole bunch of replies from people who claim "it can't be done and everyone knows that", "against the laws of physics", blah, blah, blah.
Ignore them. They are ignorant and wrong.
IF you want to try this do some work on Google first.
Look up HHO gas, Brown's Gas, Brown's Gas Generator, Water car fuel, Joe Cell and then follow the links.
Grab a free plan and build a test unit.
Yahoo has forums for special interest groups who work on and exchange this info all the time. (They also get regular visits from 'special interest groups' who advise them that talking about their successes is bad for their health.)
My own fascination is with HHO gas. There's lots of clips on these subjects on you tube.
IF you can build a system that introduces any amount of Hydrogen into the combustion chamber you will get obvious performance improvements.
Do these things work? Yes they do. (http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=102&Itemid=116)
Should you pay $100 bucks for these books - NO WAY. The information he is selling is freely available on the internet (http://www.brownsgas.com/hho_gas.html) or (http://www.brownsgas.com/brownsgasfuelsaver.html) or (http://www.brownsgas.com/hhogasgenerator_fuel_saver_technology.html) from other resources, including the inventors of this stuff.
Ozzie has collected it packaged it up and created a web site to sell it to you.
PREDICTION: I can tell you right now that this thread will get a whole bunch of replies from people who claim "it can't be done and everyone knows that", "against the laws of physics", blah, blah, blah.
Ignore them. They are ignorant and wrong.
IF you want to try this do some work on Google first.
Look up HHO gas, Brown's Gas, Brown's Gas Generator, Water car fuel, Joe Cell and then follow the links.
Grab a free plan and build a test unit.
Yahoo has forums for special interest groups who work on and exchange this info all the time. (They also get regular visits from 'special interest groups' who advise them that talking about their successes is bad for their health.)
My own fascination is with HHO gas. There's lots of clips on these subjects on you tube.
hubeerjw
Well-Known Member
Gleno, I'm not going to totally disagree with you but there have been many people out there that try to sell people into "getting something for nothing". This has turned many people away. What I don't fully understand (because I don't read/research enough) is how can you have a fully contained unit (lets say in a car) and have that much increased performance? To create enough electricity to break apart the hydrogen, the alternator has to run harder, pulling down then engine and making it work harder. You also have to carry around the water and the complete system which also adds weight and reduces performance.
The IC engine is not very efficient, but if you think about it increasing the efficiency by a percentage or two takes away some serious $$ from the oil companies. I often wonder how many ideas have "dissappeared" because of the oil companies.
Anyway, I hope I'm not bursting anyone's bubbles, but if you convert everything into BTU's and look at all the efficiency losses in terms of heat vs the enery available the I'm betting the gains will be minimal.
I am much more interested in the compresses air powered cars... almost everyone has electricity (and it is fairly cheap too) and compressors don't cost a whole lot... but do some research on that as well... The only major downside with this idea, is having high pressure air tanks in your car.
I need to run, but let's keep this conversation going.... I'll put $1000 in to a person that shows me a 10% increase performance by using "Browns Gas" on a VMax.
Later,
Jeff
The IC engine is not very efficient, but if you think about it increasing the efficiency by a percentage or two takes away some serious $$ from the oil companies. I often wonder how many ideas have "dissappeared" because of the oil companies.
Anyway, I hope I'm not bursting anyone's bubbles, but if you convert everything into BTU's and look at all the efficiency losses in terms of heat vs the enery available the I'm betting the gains will be minimal.
I am much more interested in the compresses air powered cars... almost everyone has electricity (and it is fairly cheap too) and compressors don't cost a whole lot... but do some research on that as well... The only major downside with this idea, is having high pressure air tanks in your car.
I need to run, but let's keep this conversation going.... I'll put $1000 in to a person that shows me a 10% increase performance by using "Browns Gas" on a VMax.
Later,
Jeff
We have been taught (from the school science lab) that electrolysis is performed by introducing an electrical current to an anode and cathode suspended in water which in turn splits H2O into Hydrogen and Oxygen.
We are also taught that this process is very energy hungry and inefficient. NO argument there. It is.
But why do we assume that every method of obtaining Hydrogen and Oxygen from water by electrolysis is as primitive and inefficient as this 200 year old (at least) demonstration of principle experiment we performed in our high school science lab?
1) The nature of the electrical charge has a huge bearing on the efficiency of the process. i.e. frequency and modulation can yield far higher gas production for the same or less power draw.
2) The construction of the vessel and the materials used have a huge bearing on the efficiency of the process. i.e. surface area and shape can yield far higher gas production for the same or less power draw.
3) The size shape and nature of the materials used for the anode and cathode have a huge bearing on the efficiency of the process. i.e. surface area and use of precious metals and polymers can yield far higher gas production for the same or less power draw.
A plant can perform this separation of gases at a cellular level using variables on all these design parameters and the energy of a photon!
This concept has been applied in the latest solar research on plastic film printed with 4 layers of ink. One of the layers is doped with vry cheap nano-particles that convert multiple light frequencies to an electrical charge. The charge is passed directly to an electrolysis chamber and the Hydrogen and Oxygen are used to recharge a fuel cell.
It's the same concept as the science lab but its design is far superior and waaaay more efficient.
Put that into a house and you can charge your compressed air vehicle if you like - for free. But put it in a bike and you could run the compressor or an electric motor.
It's the other things browns gas does that blow me away. fusing metals to ceramics, cutting tungsten steel like butter, welding cast iron vapourising clinker brick!!!
HHO Brown's gas is a good hybrid solution that anyone can build and play with.
We are also taught that this process is very energy hungry and inefficient. NO argument there. It is.
But why do we assume that every method of obtaining Hydrogen and Oxygen from water by electrolysis is as primitive and inefficient as this 200 year old (at least) demonstration of principle experiment we performed in our high school science lab?
1) The nature of the electrical charge has a huge bearing on the efficiency of the process. i.e. frequency and modulation can yield far higher gas production for the same or less power draw.
2) The construction of the vessel and the materials used have a huge bearing on the efficiency of the process. i.e. surface area and shape can yield far higher gas production for the same or less power draw.
3) The size shape and nature of the materials used for the anode and cathode have a huge bearing on the efficiency of the process. i.e. surface area and use of precious metals and polymers can yield far higher gas production for the same or less power draw.
A plant can perform this separation of gases at a cellular level using variables on all these design parameters and the energy of a photon!
This concept has been applied in the latest solar research on plastic film printed with 4 layers of ink. One of the layers is doped with vry cheap nano-particles that convert multiple light frequencies to an electrical charge. The charge is passed directly to an electrolysis chamber and the Hydrogen and Oxygen are used to recharge a fuel cell.
It's the same concept as the science lab but its design is far superior and waaaay more efficient.
Put that into a house and you can charge your compressed air vehicle if you like - for free. But put it in a bike and you could run the compressor or an electric motor.
It's the other things browns gas does that blow me away. fusing metals to ceramics, cutting tungsten steel like butter, welding cast iron vapourising clinker brick!!!
HHO Brown's gas is a good hybrid solution that anyone can build and play with.
Funny how you have all these people playing around with it. If it actually produced real results, then it would be something that would be on everyone's vehicle.
And spare me the conspiracy crap about oil companies squashing new technology. If this was truly a lucrative product there would be tons of people and companies scrambling to produce it.
But as It has been demystified, it has shown that the results are barely an improvement. You can get as good as an improvement in fuel mileage by simply keeping your tires properly inflated.
And no one has brought up the fact that by introducing an increase in hydrogen and oxygen into the mix the MAP sensor will lean out the fuel mix, which will give you what .0000001 miles more per gallon.
I say if you believe it, then you'll believe your getting better mileage, but in reality, it's not going to be worth the hassle of putting water and baking soda into your car all the time. Not to mention the savings in gas mileage will probably be spent on the baking soda, if not more.
And spare me the conspiracy crap about oil companies squashing new technology. If this was truly a lucrative product there would be tons of people and companies scrambling to produce it.
But as It has been demystified, it has shown that the results are barely an improvement. You can get as good as an improvement in fuel mileage by simply keeping your tires properly inflated.
And no one has brought up the fact that by introducing an increase in hydrogen and oxygen into the mix the MAP sensor will lean out the fuel mix, which will give you what .0000001 miles more per gallon.
I say if you believe it, then you'll believe your getting better mileage, but in reality, it's not going to be worth the hassle of putting water and baking soda into your car all the time. Not to mention the savings in gas mileage will probably be spent on the baking soda, if not more.
ssnsltd
Well-Known Member
FWIW:
first of, the waterforgas folks are NOT the way to go. they have some relevant information, but that is about it. In any event if one is looking for a replacement for gas- this is not it. 10-15% increase is pretty darn easy on pre96 (OBDII) vehicles. making a cell large enough to power even my old Justy would be ridiculously large and dangerous. heck it would probably weigh 1/2 as much as the car.
-it is work, not a maintenance free system. That is why it isn't "mass produced." though the newer designs are far less so than the old brute force model (=produce more heat than gas)- it is still not fire-and-forget.
-actually even waterforgas has the MAP fix. and yes, it is required to get the full benefit. O2 sensor as well in some cases. Not sure anyone has a good fix for the MAF.
-baking soda as an electrolyte has been shown to be a bad idea, a long time ago. KOH is the preferred electrolyte. It is safer, less corrosive and does change or get used up in the process on a well designed system.
like all web info, the information on the web on HHO is pretty hit and miss. half the folks out there are not only out to lunch, they are off the planet kinda out to lunch. but it does work
first of, the waterforgas folks are NOT the way to go. they have some relevant information, but that is about it. In any event if one is looking for a replacement for gas- this is not it. 10-15% increase is pretty darn easy on pre96 (OBDII) vehicles. making a cell large enough to power even my old Justy would be ridiculously large and dangerous. heck it would probably weigh 1/2 as much as the car.
-it is work, not a maintenance free system. That is why it isn't "mass produced." though the newer designs are far less so than the old brute force model (=produce more heat than gas)- it is still not fire-and-forget.
-actually even waterforgas has the MAP fix. and yes, it is required to get the full benefit. O2 sensor as well in some cases. Not sure anyone has a good fix for the MAF.
-baking soda as an electrolyte has been shown to be a bad idea, a long time ago. KOH is the preferred electrolyte. It is safer, less corrosive and does change or get used up in the process on a well designed system.
like all web info, the information on the web on HHO is pretty hit and miss. half the folks out there are not only out to lunch, they are off the planet kinda out to lunch. but it does work
MAXXMAN93-4301
Well-Known Member
have you heard of a perpetual motion machine?:ummm: same concept it violates the laws of physics.:bang head: anyone who says otherwise is delusional!:wacko: if you split the h2o with some other source of power than the vehicle your driving that might work maybe , hydrogen actually does not have a very high power density. energy can niether be created or destroyed only changed in form:hammer bash:. the energy it takes to split the h20 is equal to energy realased when thay are combined back into h20 that is if you have 100% effeciency[likely less than 30%] so if you made the hydrogen with your neighbors power you might get some actual gains:rofl_200:, otherwise your just waisting your time and money:Flush000::th_laugh2:
ssnsltd
Well-Known Member
it isn't the gas by itself, it is what it does for the WHOLE system that makes it worthwhile. useful HHO is produced with ~1.45v @15@. HHO burns ~10x faster than gas
" injection does increase combustion efficiency and create better fuel economy on any internal combustion engine. It's not because hydrogen possesses massive amounts of energy or even transfers extra energy into the engine. It?s because hydrogen is the smallest, most reactive element. Hydrogen ignites easier and burns many times faster than any other element. When injected into an internal combustion engine and ignited by the spark plug, hydrogen burns instantaneously which ignites the primary fuel from all sides at once. The gasoline (or other fuels) burns faster and completely. Because the combustion is completed during the power stroke there is no unburnt fuel to be recycled by the EGR system or to be incinerated by the catalytic converter. Emissions of hydrocarbons and greenhouse gasses are greatly reduced. The piston absorbs more energy from the resulting pressure wave created by the combustion and converts it to torque. Less energy is lost through the exhaust. The whole system becomes much more efficient. Rick Forbes "
Its the gasoline in vapor form that burns/explodes. Not so much the liquid though. Gasoline when mixed inside of the engine has iquid still with the vapor. When ignited their is fuel that doesn't burn to produce power. The excess fuel is in fact burned in the catalytic converter . The Catalytic converter acts like an afterburner. The whole reason that the catalytic converter was designed was to burn all of the excess fuel that didn't get used in the combustion process. Because of the faster burn time of HHO, combining it with gasoline makes the fuel burn more completely, in less time and provide more power on the downwards power stoke.
" injection does increase combustion efficiency and create better fuel economy on any internal combustion engine. It's not because hydrogen possesses massive amounts of energy or even transfers extra energy into the engine. It?s because hydrogen is the smallest, most reactive element. Hydrogen ignites easier and burns many times faster than any other element. When injected into an internal combustion engine and ignited by the spark plug, hydrogen burns instantaneously which ignites the primary fuel from all sides at once. The gasoline (or other fuels) burns faster and completely. Because the combustion is completed during the power stroke there is no unburnt fuel to be recycled by the EGR system or to be incinerated by the catalytic converter. Emissions of hydrocarbons and greenhouse gasses are greatly reduced. The piston absorbs more energy from the resulting pressure wave created by the combustion and converts it to torque. Less energy is lost through the exhaust. The whole system becomes much more efficient. Rick Forbes "
Its the gasoline in vapor form that burns/explodes. Not so much the liquid though. Gasoline when mixed inside of the engine has iquid still with the vapor. When ignited their is fuel that doesn't burn to produce power. The excess fuel is in fact burned in the catalytic converter . The Catalytic converter acts like an afterburner. The whole reason that the catalytic converter was designed was to burn all of the excess fuel that didn't get used in the combustion process. Because of the faster burn time of HHO, combining it with gasoline makes the fuel burn more completely, in less time and provide more power on the downwards power stoke.
I have actually seen a hydrogen generator working in person. My friend Mark has been playing with this for the last year or so and is experiementing with generators of all sizes. He has been learing alot on what works and what doesn't. Currently they run one on thier minivan and get about 4-6 mpg better mileage and have to change out the fluid and unit every few months. I'm not sure if it would be practical for the bike. I also don't think it is making the engine inherantly more powerful just more efficient.
next time you are in town Jeff hit me up and we'll run over to his house. It's only about a mile from the shop.
Sean
next time you are in town Jeff hit me up and we'll run over to his house. It's only about a mile from the shop.
Sean
44 magnum
Well-Known Member
Hey, I wonder if it's a relatively safe assumption that a larger engine (such as my 6.0 liter) would see greater efficiency since there are more 'cubes'?
What size engine's in your buddy's minivan?
naughtyG
Well-Known Member
I'm also interested in finding out 4-6mpg in relation to what?
Cos 4-6 mpg on say, 20mpg is a BIG difference. 4-6 on 40mpg is still good but not as impressive.
Either way, it sounds like it's working and worth a go to me, at least on a car/van/SUV.
Cos 4-6 mpg on say, 20mpg is a BIG difference. 4-6 on 40mpg is still good but not as impressive.
Either way, it sounds like it's working and worth a go to me, at least on a car/van/SUV.
MAXXMAN93-4301
Well-Known Member
i call bullshit!:no no no::bullshit: i mean HHO is water, water injection can help engines run leanerby reducing combustion temps, therefore getting better economy but it has nothing to do with the hydrogen:bang head:. to get the better mileage i bet all these plans and kits call for o2 sensor or maf senor mods correct?:ummm: the mileage gain is from the mods not the hydrogen. by the way hydrogen is less explosive than gasoline or alcohol with less net energy per volume unless it is commpessed to a liquid. you can get a water injection unit and get better mileage but the increase is minimal and not cost effective:hmmm:
ullhair:. all the water does is cool the fuel air mixture and combustion chamber allowing leaner mixtures without spark knock or overheating the pistons and valves. the best you will get is 3-4% increase on a 20mpg car that is .8mpg. you could do more by lowering vehicle and using aerodynamic aids to lower coeffeient of drag
ullhair:. all the water does is cool the fuel air mixture and combustion chamber allowing leaner mixtures without spark knock or overheating the pistons and valves. the best you will get is 3-4% increase on a 20mpg car that is .8mpg. you could do more by lowering vehicle and using aerodynamic aids to lower coeffeient of drag
They are not injecting water (not sure of the P.O.S. minivans engine size but he is working on a huge version to use no his cummins truck). They apply an electrical current and it begins seperating the water apart into the basic elements. Next time I am over there I will see if I can get a video of it.
If Jeff comes into town he can verify what I am telling you. I have not tried it yet as I am still leary on how explosive that stuff is. Plus I don't like the idea of a glass jar sitting under the hood. I know the current experiement he is using a large PCV tank (think the size of a welding bottle). I know the various metals he tries are sometimes eaten up by the process so I think he has it narrowed down to what he likes best.
Sean
If Jeff comes into town he can verify what I am telling you. I have not tried it yet as I am still leary on how explosive that stuff is. Plus I don't like the idea of a glass jar sitting under the hood. I know the current experiement he is using a large PCV tank (think the size of a welding bottle). I know the various metals he tries are sometimes eaten up by the process so I think he has it narrowed down to what he likes best.
Sean
I'm with Sean on this.
I'm also eye witness to 'alternate power sources' being used on internal combustion engines and the efficiency is way better than 4-6 mpg.
Some of the things I've seen ARE unbelievable. Unexplainable by any conventional knowledge BUT they work.
Fuel savings aside, HHO is a benefit if the emissions can be reduced to near zero. That is a HUGE benefit and far more sensible than growing food to be turned into bio-fuel to achieve the same result. Growing food for fuel is stupid.
What blows me away is the the Parrots who line up on the fence and repeat the usual mantra's 'it's bullshit', 'can't be done', 'laws of physics', blah blah blah.
If it were up to the parrots of this world, nothing would be invented, investigated or innovated.
Nothing would change because THEY KNOW it won't work. Science would never progress. In fact, there would be no science because THEY KNOW there is no point.
Generally speaking the parrots discredit the claims in one of three ways;
1) Simply repeating the conventional dogma which, by itself, does not constitute a coherent counter argument.
2) Quoting another parrot who has also simply repeated the conventional dogma which, by itself, does not constitute a coherent counter argument.
3) Personal attacks on the character of the innovating party when they can not discredit their claims.
A genuinely open mind would be asking 'How did they do it?' 'Where can I find out more about it', 'What's really going on here?' 'What's in it for me?', and AFTER having taken the time to investigate and replicate it, gathered all the facts and gained some understanding of what's being done for themselves, present a coherent argument of support or refutation.
Electrically powered vehicles have been around as long as combustion engines. Our knowledge of battery design energy storage and energy generation has advanced a long way in the last 150 years. JUST BECAUSE ITS NOT ON EVERYONE'S VEHICLE NOW IS NO ARGUMENT FOR DISCOUNTING THE TECHNOLOGY. THAT'S JUST STUPID.
Our knowledge of hydrogen generation has advanced a long way in the last 150 years. Hydrogen powered ICE's are perfectly viable if enough hydrogen can be supplied on demand to support the ICE. Right now, as far as we know, this is not practical with a big block engine but very realistic with a gas electric hybrid. JUST BECAUSE ITS NOT ON EVERYONE'S VEHICLE IS NO ARGUMENT FOR DISCOUNTING THE TECHNOLOGY. THAT'S JUST STUPID.
Finally, to criticize people for even attempting to understand is BEYOND STUPID. It is SPITEFUL COWARDICE.
The most inspiring research, leading to the most unexpected discoveries, happens when people pursue an unexpected observation out of simple intellectual curiosity.
Such creative leaps increasingly are blocked by large corporations, who have staked out vast swathes of intellectual property for their own exclusive use by filing patents that dictate what independent researchers can study and announce.
Last edited:
