1) discovery 1/2 have computers that control the revs, increased thermal efficiency won't increase the revs at idle (and what's going on is not just an "increased thermal efficiency" what's going on (if it works is the fuel additive analogy, it's no longer just gasoline it's a different type of fuel and using less of the gas and more of the HHO)

2) there are some on youtube, feel free to search

I can't say that HHO works to increase MPG, but if a tiny bottle of fuel additive makes such a big difference in my vehicle, makes it drive sooooo nice, then why wouldn't adding HHO make a change since the HHO kits can do LITERS of gas which is way more than just a tiny bottle of fuel additive? I'm not saying that HHO does or doesn't work since I've never tried it. I'm saying that the idea is not flawed and most people who debunk the HHO/MPG thing never change their timing or lean out their fuel. You have to do that to get more MPG because modern vehicles have computers that work on fixed formulas and unless you lean the fuel the HHO won't change anything... what's going on is that you can change the car's tuning (this is why people chip their cars to get more HP/TQ) to squirt less fuel out of the injectors per revolution and then add the HHO to compensate for the loss in fuel, so you use less fuel but still get a well running car that doesn't detonate despite using less fuel. It's just the basics, but most people don't know much about how engines work so they forget to turn down the fuel by reprogramming or somehow otherwise getting the car to squirt less fuel.

What happens if you put your hand in a 200 degree oven for 30 seconds?
What happens if you put your hand in 200 degree water for 30 seconds?

In the former nethings happens, in the latter you hand would be burned to the point of uselessness.

That's because liquids hold more potential energy than Gases at normal pressures.

Adding a liquid to you fan tank is adding an enormous amount of potential energy. A gallon of gasoline has more potential energy that 100 sticks of dynamite.

The issue with HHO is that it is physically impossible for an alternator to split H2O into HHO without an overall loss of energy, based on all known catalytic reactions. The engine would have to supply more energy to split the H2O than burning the HHO would generate. It's a net loss of energy, so you can't increase the mileage.
Adding something to the fuel tank can increase range, that's what happens when we add gasoline,we increase the range.

What you are doing is mixing some true statements with some false statements then saying because one thing is true then something false is also true. This is a type of logical fallacy (or a lie.)

It's true about sticking your hand in hot water vs the air in the oven even though you'd probably be burned in an oven at 200F for 30 seconds too just not as badly burned. It's true that dynamite is 4Kj (kilo-joules) per gram and gasoline is 48Kj per gram... about 10 times higher. It's true, but misleading, that a gallon of gasoline has more energy than 100 sticks of dynamite. 1 stick of dynamite has about 1Mj of energy and 1 gallon of gasoline has about 120Mj... so 100 sticks of dynamite have about 100Mj of energy potential which is roughly the same as 1 gallon of gasoline. Other sources say that 1 gallon of gasoline has the same energy as 14 sticks of dynamite. But your statements are misleading and they do not prove your point at all...

Because, gasoline itself can not burn or explode. It contains no oxygen. Your car must mix oxygen from the air to gasoline for it to burn. In your engine gasoline has to be FIRST converted into a vapor for it to explode in the piston chamber, this is not difficult since gasoline starts to vaporize at -40F, but it takes time and energy to do it. The rate of combustion of gasoline is slower than the rate of combustion of dynamite. Dynamite contains it's own oxygen so it is self combustible. The "DETONATION VELOCITY OF DYNAMITE" is up to 10 times higher than that for gasoline. This is why gasoline is not used to explode things or for making bombs. Don't believe me? Pour a gallon of gasoline on the ground then light it in an open field (don't try this, it's just a mind experiment) then put 100 sticks of dynamite on the ground and light them. You can actually stand there and light the gasoline and run and it won't kill you, but the dynamite will kill you and anyone around you for quite a distance. (DO NOT ACTUALLY TRY THIS SINCE IT'S DEADLY.)

On the other hand the heat value (energy) of Hydrogen is more than 3 times higher than the heat value for petroleum (gasoline.) The hydrogen produced by these kits is not just hydrogen, it's HHO (Brown's Gas.) HHO has two hydrogens and one oxygen, so the heat value of HHO gas is more than 6 times higher than that of petroleum (which can not burn or explode on it's own) and HHO has it's own oxygen which can speed the oxidation (burning/exploding) rate or velocity. So the HHO kits are producing a MUCH MUCH MUCH (6 times greater) better burning fuel than petroleum (gasoline.) And then when you burn the HHO all that's produced is water, so it cools itself down. This may be why the guy in the video says his Land Rover Discovery runs cooler with the addition of the HHO hydrogen kit.

Reading this might help you understand more about gasoline.



Now, remember, I never said that 1 liter of HHO has more energy than 1 liter of gasoline, but it probably does. I can't actually find the potential energy stored in HHO and I haven't spent the time to calculate it yet. It probably can't be compared to other fuels because the heat will be lower since it produces water when burned which cools it down. HHO flames and torches run cool to the touch, for example, because HHO turns into H20 (water) when burned.

What I did say is that if you reduce the amount of gasoline and add in another fuel (any other fuel) then your MPG (gasoline usage,) logically, will increase because you are using less gasoline. This is just common sense and can't be debated or debunked just so the other fuel burns as well or better than gasoline.

However, the popular people on TV and YouTube who have tried to debunk the entire HHO water to fuel concept never reduce the timing or lean out the fuel mixture so they never get an increase in MPG. They seem to be intentially doing the experiment wrong just to debunk the whole HHO (water to fuel) concept.

Keep in mind I am just saying this as a theory, or a mind experiment. I've never tried HHO in a combustion engine but in theory it should work. In fact, in theory HHO on demand should be able to replace gasoline since it is so much more energy dense than gasoline(petroleum.) You see hydrogen doesn't contain any Carbon (C) so it's a much more efficient fuel. Gasoline has a lot of Carbon in the way of the energy extraction (oxidation process) so it burns more slowly and has less energy per kg/liter and it produces Carbon in the form of CO2 gas and Carbon particles. And since gasoline is not just a pure simple petroleum it also produces other pollution that HHO or H will not produce.a

HHO burns cool and produces no pollution since it turns back into water and nothing else. As I said Hydrogen has more than 3 times the energy of petroleum (gasoline) and there are two hydrogen atoms in the HHO compound.

And the entire concept of the splitting of water requiring more energy from the engine than it would ever put back is bogus. If that were true, running your battery, lights, and radio would cause your MPG to go down and you've never heard anyone say to turn off your radio to get better MPG. The conversion of HHO from water probably uses a negligible amount of energy compared to what the engine is creating by burning the gasoline-air mixture. Think of it this way. If you drive to the beach then turn off your car, then run your radio off the battery, does your MPG go down? If you put two batteries in your car, would your MPG go up? If you split the water into HHO (Brown's Gas) using a solar panel on the top of the car only while it was parked or even while it was running, then would that change the chemical reaction going on in the combustion chamber.

You are parroting myths that you heard online without applying sound logic and real science so you have it all wrong. Most of all you've never tried it so you really don't know. Just like I don't know. I'm just applying science and chemistry and logic.

The main problem you have in your reasoning is that chemical reactions do not relate to electrical cost to split HHO in a 1:1 ratio. It may be much much ... much more efficient to covnert water into HHO than it is to explode petroleum(gasoline) with air. Keep in mind that the traditional combustion engine must vaporize and combine then oxidize (combust) the petroleum which uses up a lot of energy and time, which may be why they say gasoline engines are only 20% efficient. Or it may be true that the explosive power of Hydrogen mixed with Oxygen mixed with their exhaust of water vapor that cools it is much much... much more efficient. There are also mechanical deficiencies that probably drown out the amount of electricity used to split water into HHO from the battery as well. Not everything is an apples to apples comparison.

I hope that helps you understand better.

I'm not the one who needs to understand anything better. I understand the physics involved. You do not.
I've tried to explain it using simplified reasoning, but apparently you cannot even understand the word potential.

Go buy one and put it on your vehicle, it's your money and time. Go waste both.

But it cannot work, at all, even a little, with any known catalyst. Here is proof, and don't bother trying to refute it, as it is impossible.

If more HHO could be produced by applying electricity to water and a catalyst, than HHO burned to produce said electricity, then HHO power plants would be the normal method of generating electricity EVERYWHERE. It would be a clean burning readily produced and safe method of producing electricity, yet not one power plant, large or small uses this method, because it cannot work. No known catalyst makes this a positive energy output.

H2O has potential energy, but to unlock that energy requires energy to break the hydrogen bond between water molecules and the covalent bond inside each water molecule, or about 260 kJ per mole, which is more energy than can be obtained by burning the resulting HHO.

Some day could this work? Yes, a catalyst could be found that greatly reduces the amount of energy required to breaks the bonds of H2O, but that is the holy grail of power generation. Power generation as we know it would completely transform. Every vehicle would use it, all heat based power plants would use it. The entire World would change.

A guy on YouTube is not sitting on an undiscovered method worth trillions of dollars.

I don't even waste my time reading this thread. The claim that the tiny amounts of hydrogen and oxygen from a 0.5kW generator can almost double the efficiency of a 150kW gasoline engine is ridiculous.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself. You never know who you are talking to online, I could be your college science teacher for all you know. You couldn't even get the comparison of gasoline and dynamite correct. Dynamite is a much more powerful explosive than gasoline because it has up to 10x more explosion velocity and it has it's own oxygen. Oxygen is required for most combustion and burning. Standard petroleum/gasoline as no oxygen burns more slowly that Dynamite, just like diesel fuel burns more slowly than gasoline.

I never said that it would work. You keep trying to put words in my mouth, so to say. I said in theory it would work. I've never tried it and neither have you. You are missing a lot of things and trying to compare electrical efficiency with chemical efficiency with mechanical efficiency. They don't compare as apples do to apples. That's the biggest failure your your logic. The HHO would work and in theory should work just like any fuel additive works. And fuel additives do work to change power and MPG (slightly up or down.)

Another problem with your attempted proof is that the car combustion works in a very narrow window where adding more fuel or less fuel doesn't effect power. It's like a type of Goldi-Lox situation. If you add more fuel the computer compensates, if you add less fuel the computer compensates... if the battery is low, the computer compensates... and so on. It's not a linear comparison.

I'm not saying it would work, but in theory it has to work because anytime you use less gasoline by adding in more fuel you are using less gasoline which will decrease MPG. It's easy to disprove you and the others because you say that by splitting water into HHO that it takes more energy to do that then you get back by burning it. That may be true, but even then people seldom talk about frequency and there are other tricks like using micro-pulses claimed to fracture water rather than just brute-force it to separate into HHO, but none of these tricks are used in this situation. So you say it can't work because it will zap more electricity from the engine than it would gain back from burning it. Let's assume that's true. You are still wrong because you are missing an important fact. The car engine is only 20% efficient, it's not a zero sum machine. The alternator is producing energy constantly that is never used. With a 20% system the HHO is only moving the efficiency scale back towards 100%. So by improving the MPG the efficiency with HHO may go up a percentage or two or more, but it's still not going to be 100% efficient. Nobody claimed that but you and others are only applying cave-man logic to the situation and making glaring mistakes like thining the car engine is 100% efficient. The alternator is always producing extra unused electricity, even when the battery is fully charged... you can debunk your claims by simple logical propositions like:

1) you say that the HHO process would take more energy than it gives back, then logically adding 2 or 3 or 4 or 100 batteries (charged by the alternator) would increase the car's efficiency, but that's not true because once the alternator spins the energy is lost to heat and the combustion works in a narrow Goldi-Lox band of optimum air to fuel ratio, temperature, fuel octane, and pressure. Your car doesn't come to a screeching halt because the battery is low or high. Using HHO is just a way to take advantage of some of the lost electrical energy from the alternator. A car battery only charges so much, but the alternator never stops sending energy to it, so a lot of the energy from the alternator is wasted no matter what. The electricity only travels in one direction. Once it's produced by the alternator it never goes back into the engine, it's a dead-end.

2) according to your imaginary 100% efficient car that is as simple as input=output, turning on your radio or cabin lights doesn't lower your MPG just like running with no battery or a low-charge battery doesn't lower your MPG, because the alternator charges at a constant rate and has a limited electrical output no matter what speed the car is going, it doesn't suddenly produce more mechanical friction on a dead or low battery, it's constant all the time, no matter the electrical draw on it.

HHO systems if they work are probably working just to increase the efficiency of a the typical car which is only 20%, so there is a lot of room to make that more efficient.

If the HHO system was run from a solar panel on the roof, only when it was sufficiently sunny and only when the car was parked, it could produce enough energy to fully fuel the car with hydrogen because splitting H20 into HHO is more efficient than a combustion gasoline engine and Hydrogen alone has more than 3 times the energy as gasoline and you get 2 Hydrogen and one Oxygen in every chemical process in splitting the H20 into HHO. HHO burns more powerfully possibly by a factor of more than 6 than petroleum(gasoline) and it burns cool because it only produces water vapor as a byproduct of it's combustion.

The basis of this proof is that anytime you use less fuel your gasoline MPG will go up. It doesn't matter if the extra fuel is HHO, a fuel additive, ethanol, or another fuel just so that extra fuel burns with the same more greater energy than the gasoline. And since gasoline can't burn or explode without added work, it's easy to find fuels that produce more energy than gasoline.

This guy has a fully working Hydrogen Corvette that charges up when parked on Hydrogen from solar. It works but relies on a chemical that is not available since it can be used in bombs.

This guy runs his entire house on Hydrogen produced from solar and his car runs 100% on the same Hydrogen, he's been runnning it for years.
https://www.energydigital.com/smart-...weathers-storm

These two examples don't even use the Oxygen produced in the H20 to HHO conversion so they waste a lot of the energy, but it still works.

To sum it up, the HHO kits can theoretically work because they are only increasing the efficiency of the standard gasoline powered car from it's measly 20% by using electrical energy from the alternator that would be normally wasted to add a fuel that is more than 6 times more powerful than petroleum (gasoline.) Remember to burn/combust in the cylinder chamber the gasoline must first be vaporized then mixed with oxygen. HHO already has oxygen and Hydrogen has more than 3 times the energy of petroleum.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/inform...ous-fuels.aspx

Looking at the chart again it's H2 that has more than 3 times the energy of petroleum (gasoline) not more than 6 times.

Double the efficiency would only be 40% or less efficient.

say what?

You read it. An alternator keeps spinning even if the battery is charged, the electricity it produces over the amount needed or accepted by the battery is wasted.

Regulator modulates the power output.

Stop spewing nonsense.