This guy shows the product of his in-line fuel cell that generates hydrogen injected into the intake manifold.
He has a scangauge and shows MPG in the 20-25 range.
In a future video he says he has been using it for 2 years without premium fuel, and that he can get up to 28mpg if he drafts a truck.
He is also on instagram : @britishrepairs

I have read recent posts and it looks like he has put about 50-60k miles on the truck since installing this, and claims to still be on his original headgasket (250k total miles).
Anyone else done this?
Anybody else want to help/co-install virtually?
I'm basically obsessed as of this moment and everything else is just a series of frustrations until I'm done.

Shows his device and some details (necessary but insufficient to replicate)

5:30mins in, starts talking about fuel

 

Sorry I don't buy it, not from what is in that video. It can if you have an onboard source of hydrogen but not via those little generators they are far too inefficient and power hungry. There is tons of info out there about this

 

Ok, so, if I understand, the claim is this person has spent what appears to be dozens to likely hundreds of accumulated hours building a complicated rig of steel, electrics and tubing, mounted permanent brackets, has a pump, visible fluid and gas output with an appropriate throttle response, removed the intake manifold to install it, waited long enough to generate appreciable oxidation so it looks well worn on their vehicle, has removed their dashboard, and in other ways has permanently vandalized their truck, while spending additional hours programming a complicated output modifier to falsely indicate improved gasoline mileage hacked into a scangauge display.....and managed to keep it a secret from his popular local 4x4 group so nobody blabbed.....all just to troll people in a community he appears to have a lot of fondness for.

If it's true, it's a legendary troll and he deserves all of our respect. Most would not go through what is really a self-own just to make some strangers argue about something nearly nobody is going to actually attempt.

Meanwhile I've looked into the HHO community and it is not without some evidence of success with this type of rig on other vehicles.

I'm going to need a more detailed takedown, for example from an engineering perspective on energy density, or the claim that he's really just using the hydrogen to fool the Scangauge's MPG sensors and not ACTUALLY getting better miles per gallon in volumes consumed over distance traveled, before I write off what appears to be a substantively detailed claim of evidence from the person who made this video.

Also, if this exact rig would work with a small onboard source of hydrogen, I'd be more than happy to install just that!

 

Well I just saw Bridge Over the RIver Kwai over the weekend... All about a British Colonel who decided to engineer and construct THE BEST BRIDGE EVER MADE, even though it was going to be blown up the first time a train went over it... Pride...

Lots of Brits using LPG on these and on P38's as well... Might be a more proven tech to avoid the inevitable coming soon $4.00 gas.

 

@Matthew Markert I am not saying it can not work the basic science is sound but the video shows no real information. Having said that you can by kits all over the internet to do this with claims of 5 to 10 MPG better fuel mileage, just search for HHO kits.

I will even start you off https://www.hho-1.com/ the full kit is 750.00US they claim 25 to 56% increase so for us in theory 4 to 7 MPG. Just not worth the risk for me at 1000.00 unless someone could prove it out

 

@Richard Gallant I totally agree with you, indeed I've seen that forum and others.

From the looks of it this guy has all the makings of one of their setups. Electrolysis plates, power, reservoir, injection, and a PVM controller for the O2 sensors. So similar to the HHO-1 "super" kit with protuner.

He mounted it and demo'd videos. This, it would suggest, could be someone "proving it out."
There are others on the Rover P38:

This guy claims from 18L per (unit of distance not mentioned) to 14L per (unit of distance not mentioned)


This guy claims from 30L per 100km to 11L per 100km

 

In my opinion, instantaneous MPG really doesn’t mean much necessarily. I can roll my car down a long shallow grade at part throttle and the MPH will remain constant and instaneteous MPG goes up on Ultraguage to 20-30 or so because I don’t use as much power rolling down a hill.

Also, this guy has 37s on this truck. There’s no way to know if the speedo signal / VSS has been calibrated to the larger tires. Pretty sure you can calibrate scan gauge to compensate for tire size, but no real way to know if he did that / if it’s actually accurate.

Better way to tell would be to top off the tank, record mileage, drive it without H2 for a tankful or so. Calculate MPG. Then do the same with H2. I doubt there would be much, if any, gain over a longer period.

 

Ok, have not looked at the videos but am somewhat familiar with hydrogen fueled vehicles from an engineering perspective (BSME, 30yrs experence). Where are they getting the hydrogen? Hydrogen is highly explosive (Hindenburg), I don't want it in my vehicle in a tank. Company I worked for looked at zeolyte as a transport mechanism for Hydrogen, solves the explosive tank problem but creates a refilling speed problem. You can make hydrogen from water with electricity, so if you have cheap or free electricity it can be attractive. Iceland makes it cheap with geothermal energy, but they have not solved the explosion tank.

If we could get widespread hydroelectric power - tidal, in-situ on big rivers like the Mississippi and Ohio, zeolyte canisters that are swappable at filling stations, it could replace fossil fuels. Don't look for Musk to work on it though.

 

You're right about insta vs total. Longer videos show sustained 20-21mpg while the RPMs are visible in the shot, and engine noise can be heard to correspond to retained highway velocity over flat ground, although to your point he says he has not regeared or adjusted the speedo, so his display is about 10-12% off. In my experience this underestimate mpg on ODBs, not overestimates, but I digress.

Other users above in videos from my subsequent post claim reduced volumes of fuel used, for example one person said over a 100km distance they went from 18L fuel to 11L fuel consumed.

 

The world of so-called "Hydroxy" gas (H-H-O) is somewhat partially matured, in the sense it has been used for many years on automobiles and there are a number of competing commercial products. Many do not account for downstream O2-sensor, ECU or other electrical bypasses necessary to prevent the engine from simply dumping more fuel in to compensate - this is the argument against a popular mechanics test from several years ago, and why they failed to see improved efficiency.

There is a generator unit on the car - coated stainless steel plates are electrolyzed into hydrogen, through a water tank and the produced hydoxy gas is injected into the intake. The power source for electrolysis is the battery/alternator. You are still consuming fuel, it is not violating thermodynamic laws, but the petrochemical ignition process is made less inefficient due to the shift in the equation brought by the addition of a more combustible gas (H2), that also includes elemental oxygen as a carrier.

YouTube "HHO car" for a laundry list of people claiming effectiveness. The "it's a scam" videos I have seen are people talking theory - if there are any "demonstration of failure" videos please post them here. Requirements:

​​​​​​1) Volume of fuel consumed (not mpg displayed) over distance must be recorded/reported.
2) Intallation of system must include a PVM or other downstream chip/ECU bypass to modify O2 sensors so they are not dumping fuel to compensate.
3) Volume of fuel consumed must be reported again after installation.
4) Visibility of the system working (bubbles of HBO gas generated) must be shown.

I'm all ears - can only find supportive videos of practical installation, or armchair engineers telling me why they think it shouldn't work with back of the napkin calculations, not testing that shows it doesn't work.

(p.s. - it's considered impolite to comment tangentially on a subject where the thread is a video, while leading with stating the video wasn't watched, and when that video contained the very information that might have prevented a tangential response - in this case showing the physical apparatus used to make hydrogen)