hho Generator for frelander v6 2.5 petrol

[Ezgoing]

guys

Has any one any experience with hho generators especially for the freelander v6 2.5 petrol.

Thks

Peter

[willk]

Linky

Snake Oil I'm afraid Peter...

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Ezgoing

guys

Has any one any experience with hho generators especially for the freelander v6 2.5 petrol.

Thks

Peter

I'd've thought that with the weak head gaskets of this engine that the results could be, er, interesting.

Assuming there's anything in it, of course ;-)

[Nos4r2]

It CAN'T work. It takes more energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen than it makes when you burn hydrogen in oxygen to make water. It's a universal constant.
Unfortunately, it sounds plausable to the salesmen who sell it(who generally aren't bright enough to change a universal constant).
It's snake oil. If it worked, then it'd be fitted on new cars.
Same goes for magnets on fuel lines, tin mesh catalysts, etc...

[jezza2011]

Guys its really easy to make and they do work.

best to build it out of stainless.

mine is stainless steel tube with stainless mesh inside for the anode.

make quite alot of H2 and O.

and this is just a test unit running of the 12V of the car.

you just add the HH & O in to the air intakes. give much more mpg.

[Poly]

Nos, Willk - you boys are clearly misleading the public with all your talk of snake oil and laws of thermodynamics... Jezza says he's made one himself and it works - so it must be true.

So Jezza can you explain how it works? I'm particularly interested in understanding:

* where the energy comes from to break the H-O-H bonds?
* presumably since you refer to anode and 12V this comes from the battery?
* where does the battery get its energy from?
* the alternator... ...which gets its energy from the engine.
* and the engine gets its energy from combustion. And the combustion of H2 produces exactly the same amount of energy as it takes to turn water into H2 and O2.
* so even if your process was 100% efficient it would result in no net gain, but charging batteries, alternators, combustion engines etc are all rather inefficient...

Now how much water do you put in? even if you could miraculously turn water to hydrogen at no energy cost, then 1L of water (1 kg) produces just (2/18 kg of H2), which will produce 123 * 2 / 18 MJ of heat... ...thats about the same as 1/3rd of a litre of petrol... Unless you are adding a lot of water (litres per trip) then a noticeable change is impossible.

Add that to the fact that your engine is optimised for burning petrol not hydrogen and without some significant retuning its not going to run efficiently on hydrogen.

[Ezgoing]

If ya think it is free energy then the idea is pure snake oil. Agreed.

However if you can add hho into the fuel mix with air and petrol it leads to a more efficient combustion and lowering of consumption.

I was just wondering if anyone had done it on the freelancer petrol.

What is this about weak gasket on landie?

Thks

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Ezgoing

If ya think it is free energy then the idea is pure snake oil. Agreed.

However if you can add hho into the fuel mix with air and petrol it leads to a more efficient combustion and lowering of consumption.

I was just wondering if anyone had done it on the freelancer petrol.

What is this about weak gasket on landie?

Thks

At what point is what you said not describing free energy?

1) There is no such thing as HHO. It's a junk name invented by quacks.


2)IT TAKES MORE ENERGY TO SPLIT WATER INTO HYDROGEN AND OXYGEN THAN YOU GET BACK OUT BY BURNING IT BECAUSE YOUR CAR BATTERY CHARGING SYSTEM AND THE GAS GENERATOR CANNOT BE 100% EFFICIENT.
YOU CANNOT GET ROUND THIS.

3) If you really think this works then you give me a a tenner, I'll give you a five pound note and tell you you've saved some money. We can do that all day 'til you're bankrupt.


It's NOT rocket science.

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Ezgoing

What is this about weak gasket on landie?

Google has the answer. The "Rover" 2.5 V6 is better than the "Rover" K series 1.8 4 pot but still no cigar. And by some margin.

[Pikey Dave]

Gents, just playing devils advocate here, I'd never heard of "HHO, Browns gas" etc until this thread. Just supposing that:- the infernal combustion engine is notoriously in-efficient, around 20% IIRC. Lets say that adding some of the magic ingredient increased the efficiency of the fuel burn by a significant amount, which resulted in the engine producing more power per unit of petrol used. Not because of the energy from the HHO which we know has a net cost, but because the engine is now running more efficiently. So by adding the HHO which might "cost" 1% in fuel, we increase the efficiency of the engine by 10%, so the net gain is +ve. On an engine as poor at using fuel as a combustion engine, there are gains to be made.

Just my 2 penneth, could be total bollix, dunno!

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

... So by adding the HHO which might "cost" 1% in fuel, we increase the efficiency of the engine by 10% ...

That's where the logic falls down, PD. These figures fall into the summat fer nowt category.

Some years ago, BMW produced about a 100 'bivalent' 6.0litre V12 6 Series vehicles. They could run on hydrogen or petrol.

Running on pure petrol the vehicle did 20.3mpg on the urban cycle, running on hydrogen 5.6mpg. This correlates with the relative energy densities of the two fuels (34.6 v 10.1MJ/litre respectively). There was no engine power increase for running on hydrogen.

[Festinghouse]

ive always understood that you cant create, or destroy energy, you can only transfer it one way or another. each time you do something with it there are losses in heat, sound, vibration you name it - all of which use some of the energy to create before that energy can be used for what you want.
im no scientist, but is it possible that this hho process is acting as a catalyst rather than a fuel?
oh, and just to correct a few people, rocket science is easy - its just fuel, ignition and thrust!

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Festinghouse

im no scientist, but is it possible that this hho process is acting as a catalyst rather than a fuel?

My point exactly, the additional energy from the hydrogen is negligible & costs, but just maybe it acts in the petrol reaction to make it more efficient. Not so much a case of something for nothing, more a case of making better use of what you've got. In a machine as inefficient as the ICE there has to be huge potential for efficiency savings.

[Nos4r2]

No. Absolutely not.

If you're in any doubt try googling 'using hydrogen as a catalyst' and the only thing that you'll find that's actually relevant is another one of the HHO scams.

Spend 10 minutes watching the videos here(click)and take note of how much Dennis Lee (the 'inventor' of this) sounds like a TV evangelist.

Then look up another one of his cons, the pre-ignition catalytic converter ( Public Debut of the Pre Ignition Catalytic Converter ) where he seems to think you can crack petrol into a type of plasma fuel that's 50 or 60% efficient (depending on how much bollocks you read) using car battery power. This is impossible-to quote Wikipedia:-

The largest internal combustion engines in the world are two-stroke diesels, used in some locomotives and large ships. They use forced induction (similar to super-charging, or turbocharging) to scavenge the cylinders; an example of this type of motor is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer turbocharged two-stroke diesel as used in large container ships. It is the most efficient and powerful internal combustion engine in the world with over 50% thermal efficiency.[4][5][6][7] For comparison, the most efficient small four-stroke motors are around 43% thermal efficiency (SAE 900648); size is an advantage for efficiency due to the increase in the ratio of volume to surface area.

The guy is a scammer of the worst kind. He robs people who are desperately trying to save money.

[Leapy]

Try THIS for some light reading. For those wanting deeper science there are innumerable reference links from reputable sources.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

No. Absolutely not.

If you're in any doubt try googling 'using hydrogen as a catalyst' and the only thing that you'll find that's actually relevant is another one of the HHO scams.

Spend 10 minutes watching the videos here(click)and take note of how much Dennis Lee (the 'inventor' of this) sounds like a TV evangelist.

Then look up another one of his cons, the pre-ignition catalytic converter ( Public Debut of the Pre Ignition Catalytic Converter ) where he seems to think you can crack petrol into a type of plasma fuel that's 50 or 60% efficient (depending on how much bollocks you read) using car battery power. This is impossible-to quote Wikipedia:-



The guy is a scammer of the worst kind. He robs people who are desperately trying to save money.

Well, the monoatomic ionized hydrogen sold it to me
Like I said, just playing devils advocate (slow day)

[Rokraider]

I don't have any understanding of this subject, but can't see how this can work ie free energy.
I experimented with a methanol breather system when I was living near Reno Nevada in the 80's. I had a 350 Chev fitted into a 1942 Ex army Dodge ambulance as my everyday car. I found using Methanol as an additive breathed directly into the inlet manifold via a regulator, I could pull the ignition timing up by another 15 degrees over standard without any pre ignition issues (Pinking). This made a huge difference to the vehicles performance, much livelier everywhere. I should point out that this was at 5500' above sea level. When going back down to sea level, I had to back the timing off again as pinking would become an issue.
With the methanol system working properly, I found if I resisted the urge to use the extra performance, there was a marked increase in economy, maybe 3-4 miles to a gallon. I assume this is due to the engine running more efficiently. The 350 was an old school V8 fitted with a Rochester 2 barrel carb, so not exactly state of the art.
I realise that this is a totally different discussion, but wondered whether one of these hydrogen devices, if they worked and were used in the same way, could boost the engines efficiency?

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Rokraider

I don't have any understanding of this subject ...

Neither do I, Nos, Cookee et al. Neither does the might of the world's automotive industry brains trust. But we're all desperate for someone to tell us with data and facts, witnessed and verified. Please.

But, there could be a very good reason why no-one can.

Back in the carb day there were all sorts of fuel saving devices offering unbelievable power and economy improvements - trick spark plugs, fuel pressure regulators, magic fuel additives, magnetic whats-its around fuel lines, and and and ... Some bod fitted all of them to his car at the same time, and guess what?

Nothing. Other than the negative effect of the extra weight being carted around.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Rokraider

I don't have any understanding of this subject, but can't see how this can work ie free energy.
I experimented with a methanol breather system when I was living near Reno Nevada in the 80's. I had a 350 Chev fitted into a 1942 Ex army Dodge ambulance as my everyday car. I found using Methanol as an additive breathed directly into the inlet manifold via a regulator, I could pull the ignition timing up by another 15 degrees over standard without any pre ignition issues (Pinking). This made a huge difference to the vehicles performance, much livelier everywhere. I should point out that this was at 5500' above sea level. When going back down to sea level, I had to back the timing off again as pinking would become an issue.
With the methanol system working properly, I found if I resisted the urge to use the extra performance, there was a marked increase in economy, maybe 3-4 miles to a gallon. I assume this is due to the engine running more efficiently. The 350 was an old school V8 fitted with a Rochester 2 barrel carb, so not exactly state of the art.
I realise that this is a totally different discussion, but wondered whether one of these hydrogen devices, if they worked and were used in the same way, could boost the engines efficiency?

I suspect your benefits were because the methanol cools the charge and the extra air density from the cooled charge made the lions share/all the difference you saw.Unless you were chucking gallons of methanol in, it wouldn't make much odds to the power of the motor from the combustion of the methanol.
(FWIW,Methanol contains less energy than petrol-which is why carbed drag engines running on methanol use HUGE mainjets and the huge volume of methanol going in almost negates the need for a cooling system.)

5,500 feet up plus hot air isn't going to be much fun for an engine.

Burning a hydrogen/oxygen mix wouldn't help-it's not going to be cold. Water injection may have helped in almost the same manner though.

[Ezgoing]

Well done to those who are able to understand what I am getting at.

Pikey Dave appears to understand.

I accept that these are not some sort of free energy device.

I have first hand experience of one in a Trooper which has lowered fuel consumption by as much as 30% on long journeys.

What I am keen to find is someone who has tried it on the 2.5 Freelander.

For those who are interested in checking it out a bit more have a look at some of the youtube entries on this link.


N JOY

hho generator in car - YouTube