On 03/17/2009 10:14 AM I posted this message on CR4
Our business is research and development. We have three technicians assigned part time to our HHO project. We entered the project with the assumption that it works but that it just is not safe. Our sole focus up until now was safety. We successfully completed the safety project. See http://www.hhogassavermpg.com/
. Now we are in the middle of confirming the technology and acquiring federal EPA certification. I understand CR4 to say that the technology is unproven which concerns me. Why do people’s informal tests indicate otherwise? And why has nobody convinced CR4 of this? Is the idea that new? Are we at HHOINFO being fooled? Should we drop our projects and move on?
On 03/17/2009 7:05 PM I got this reply. HOW SHOULD I RESPOND TO IT?
Are we being fooled?
That seems like a difficult position to support. Clearly you must know that the very long history of HHO devices has always (or at least since 1918) been surrounded by charges (and some convictions) of fraud. I doubt that you are being fooled.
Is the idea that new?
Even people not engaged in the business know this is not a new idea in any way, shape, or form. The first US patent for a device which functions exactly like today's devices was awarded in 1918. As you know, actually working as advertised is not a requirement for issuing a patent.
Should we drop the project and move on?
Only you can decide that. It depends upon your ethical compass. If you believe these devices work, and if you believe you have a vehicle which can demonstrate that, then go to the EPA. If their tests show that your belief has some foundation, then find out what is unique about your device (because this would be historic) patent that unique aspect, and make a business.
As far as dealing with only the safety aspect of HHO, you'd have to rely on your own market studies. Clearly, even though these devices have never been demonstrated to work by an independent agency such as the EPA, they sell very well. Are the buyers concerned about safety? Who knows? The amount of HHO that these units produce is far too small to have any effect whatsoever on engine performance. But is it possible that H2 (the O2 part simply mixes with the air as soon as the HHO is outside its duct) could accumulate under hood in sufficient concentration to go kaboom? Perhaps in a stationary car. Can you create enough fear to make a business from this aspect? Maybe. Be aware that old batteries with standard vented caps could liberate about as much H2 as an HHO unit, and did not explode frequently enough for people to be too worried.
Even sophisticated investors are not too hard to swindle. Madoff made billions. Imagine how easy it is to fool people about the effect of HHO in a country where 80% of high school graduates cannot even find Chicago on a map, let alone quote facts from a physics or chemistry textbook.
You can read my zillions of posts elsewhere but a brief summary of "reasons" why HHO works as advertised (according to promoters) is here:
1. 15% (or 20% or 30%) of the fuel goes past the exhaust valve unburned: Flat Lie. The percentage is never more than 1% either side of perfect, and is typically closer than that. Catalytic converters are damaged by values outside these limits.
2. HHO improves combustion: Misconception. The NASA study shows that injection amounts must be at least an order of magnitude higher (than HHO units produce) to have enough effect on combustion speed to have any significant effect on energy efficiency. Even this only applies when the H2 is delivered for free thermodynamically. The situation is actually much worse with electrolysis units, which consume engine power.
3. HHO simply adds additional fuel to the engine, which you get for free from the water. Flat Lie. This is the classic perpetual motion scheme, and was the standard HHO promotion lie for years. Water is not a fuel, which should be incredibly obvious to anyone who has put out a camp fire. Making H2 from water requires more energy than you can get from burning the fuel. Always, and by any method. (This is true if even if you use the highest quality electrolysis equipment, and burn the hydrogen in a calorimeter -- which measures its entire heat value. In an engine, the situation is much worse, because you only get 25% the energy converted to mechanical output.) The alternator load, and the fuel used to power it, goes up with the electrical load.
4. There is excess electricity being generated all the time by the alternator. Flat Lie. The greater the draw on the alternator, the more HP required, and the more fuel consumed. This should be obvious to anyone who has seen generators at Home Depot: big ones which (consume a lot of fuel) produce more electricity than small ones. It is also obvious to anyone who has read how a car alternator works, or who has worked on one.
5. I've developed a method for splitting water that is twice, five times or 50 times (yes there really is such a claim!) as efficient as "brute force" electrolysis. Flat Lie. A reasonably efficient HHO unit is 50% efficient. 100% efficiency is not possible, nor is any efficiency over 100%.
6. But my method "jiggles" the molecule apart with pulses of x frequency (or ac) at some frequency. I use "resonance." Flat Lie. This suggests that in the inventors corner of the world the laws of thermodynamics do not apply. It matters not whether you use tweezers or rocks, or high voltage or low, the laws of thermodynamics apply: even assuming 99% efficiency of the electrolysis process, the net loss is still large: for each ounce of fuel you consume to produce HHO, you get back 1/5 oz of energy in HHO (because, at best, the engine and alternator making the HHO is only 20% efficient.)
7. But I'm getting a 50% or 100% improvement despite the fact that you stupid science types think it does not work. Profound misconception, bad test method, mental instability, placebo effect, Flat Lie? Imagine yourself an inventor sitting on a billion dollar device but sitting around making videos on YouTube, or spending your time trying to convince CR4 members, most of whom apply science every day, that science is bogus. Plausible?
8. You stinky meany heads would have kept the Wright Brothers from flying. Profound misconception. The Wright Brothers were classic scientists, and relied heavily on aerodynamics texts by Chanute and others, and on the experience of a very long line of aviation pioneers.
9. Stanley Meyer was convicted of fraud because of the Big Oil conspiracy against him. Profound Misconception. Stanley was convicted because he was a fraud who claimed that you could run a car on water, and that he had a method which produced H2 on an over-unity basis (i.e., in violation of laws of thermodynamics).
10. I'm not proposing any kind of perpetual motion machine. Profound Misconception. For the amount of HHO generated to even creep up any where near close to the point that its effect would be measurable, the process must operate at multiples of over-unity (in which case you have a perpetual motion machine -- just plug the out put into the input and it runs forever.) In a typical engine of today, the electrolysis process would have to operate at 500% efficiency, just to get to the break even point.
11. Well, if these things operate at a net loss, then I'd see my mileage going down, but I don't. Slight Misconception. These units draw about the same current as headlights (100 watts). The effect of 100 watts is very hard to measure on engine of 150,000 watts. (Obviously the potential benefit would be unmeasurable as well.)
12. HHO is monatomic, with completely different properties than H2. Flat Lie or profound ignorance. HHO is similar to oxyacetylene -- if you crack open both valves on a torch when you light it, you get a bang. Ditto for lighting a HHO. However, when you put HHO into the intake airstream in the incredibly tiny amounts produced by an HHO "booster" the two gases separate, and all that is left as an energy difference is the tiny additional amount of H2, surrounded by and intermixed with an incredibly large amount of air with a small amount of gasoline vapor. At the instant that HHO comes out of the common duct, all you have is a tiny amount of hydrogen. Wackos claim that ultra high flame front speeds will prevail, thinking apparently that HHO remains in one place (about the size of a rain drop in the relatively huge volume of a cylinder) but It does not. It simply mixes with everything else. If it did not, it would be impossible to make the other silly claim -- that it has a measurable effect on combustion -- because only one in 500 times would that little chunk of separate HHO be anywhere near to the spark plug.
13. The HHO units makes the ECU "think" the engine is running lean, so the ECU increases the fuel flow. Therefore, you must tamper with your emission system. Flat Lie. These differences are not measurable (just as you'd expect because of the tiny amount of H2 injected) as verified by perhaps the best recent test of HHO devices, that done by Popular Mechanics. The Popular Mechanics test is particular good, because it is easily understandable, but also because it was performed by a body that is beyond independent -- they gain ad revenue from mileage improvement devices, so it is clearly in their best interest to say that these things work, not that they don't work. If you poke around HHO websites, you'll find many "reasons" why HHO can only work if you buy additional stuff: solvents, magnets, fuel heaters, etc. Ironically, some HHO sites which said that their unit worked just fine a year ago, now say that you must buy additional stuff to make them work. ("We were lying then, but now we are telling the truth.") Suckers keep coming, though.
For additional info poke around CR4. Although I thought my last post in this thread was really going to be my last on HHO devices (I've tired of going around in circles, and this seems like a waste of CR4 bandwidth.) perhaps this post will be. I hope you make the right decision regarding going ahead with your plans.