Why do you say that? You are changing the atmosphere that it is burning in.

__________________
Ron Schroeder
'85 300 Turbo Diesel 2 tank WVO
'83 300 Turbo Diesel 2 tank WVO
Some former WVO vehicles since ~1980:
'83 Mercedes 240D
'80 Audi 4000D
'83 ISUZU Pup
'70 SAAB 99 with Kubota diesel
'76 Honda Civic with Kubota diesel
'86 Golf
Several diesel generators
All with 2 tank WVO conversion
LI NY

No, its still burning in an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. The only thing that changes is the flame front ignites the additional fuel. This isn't a gasser, the two fuels don't mix.

At least not noticeably. I ran a propane system on my truck for a long time (15K miles) and kept mileage records. Comparing the BTU differences of the fuel indicated that their was not any noticeable difference in efficiency, just the difference in the mileage because of the difference in fuel.

One other difference was that the power was higher, but only because of the additional fuel. Note that a diesel, under normal conditions, has too much air for the amount of fuel it burns but their is a difference between my truck and the earlier model MBs. The computer on my truck would limit the amount of fuel above a certain boost level, so the propane did help with acceleration BUT at cruise, it was merely a substitute fuel. I have not run a cost analysis with new fuel prices, but back then, it was a wash.

Oh, two other little tidbits of information
One, if you put a propane system on the vehicle, make sure that it is failsafe OFF and you have a power switch in the cabin. I also do not recommend fumigation at low boost situations.

Two, too much propane is not a good thing either. You can easily break things, like pushrods, rocker arms and other engine pieces. BTDT on a stock install.

AND, legally, you need a DOT approved tank to use and IMO, it needs to be mounted in a very safe, protected area (you really do not want a propane tank to be ruptured in a collision). Note that propane is a heavy gas and will settle.

__________________
87 300SDL - 215K Miles !!
99 F-350CC Dually PSD - 190K
86 300SDL - 189K
All on B-100

AND, if I remember correctly, propane will burn faster than diesel. Note my comment about bent pushrods and broken rocker arms in my previous post. Faster burn is not always better.......

__________________
87 300SDL - 215K Miles !!
99 F-350CC Dually PSD - 190K
86 300SDL - 189K
All on B-100

Posted this elsewhere on the forum, but here goes anyhow:

The Nature of HHO...

I have yet to see anyone speak to the fact that using HHO in an engine allows for the extraction of more energy from gasoline/diesel fuels by reducing waste.

This seems to be the main point that a lot of folks are missing out on, IMHO.

HHO doesn't create energy so much as liberate it. Under normal conditions, only about 25% of the energy stored in petroleum-based fuels is used for mechanical work before being deposited into the exhaust line.

Gasoline molecules are long, multi-chained branches of hydrocarbons that burn slowly, especially when compared to hydrogen molecules that combust with 3x the detonation velocity. These hydrocarbon chains don't ignite oxygen all at once. Instead, they continue to burn after exiting the engine into the exhaust line and on out the tailpipe, where the energy given off is wasted as heat and emission products. That these molecules continue to burn even after they exit the vehicle should give an idea of available energy that is ordinarily wasted.

The idea behind using HHO in automobiles is to make more efficient use of petroleum fuels that are normally under-utilized. Mixing HHO with petroleum fuels before combustion/compression creates a more complete burn that translates into more available energy.

Tuning the engine so that it can make use of this increase in available energy is what creates more power and/or fuel savings.

As far as I can see, HHO is an effective way of making better use of petroleum fuels in existing engine lines. The degree to which you are capable of tuning and tweaking the engine will play a significant role in yielding the fuel savings, power increases and/or emission reductions that HHO systems promise.

Very few of these systems will offer considerable plug-and-play benefits, lending to the opinion that they are 'scams'. I'm willing to concede that there are probably a few of these systems that do not work as advertised or suffer from shoddy craftsmanship. However, it should be noted that it takes a little bit of work beyond installing the system to get optimal MPG increases.

What I want to emphasize is that few engines are designed to make use of the increased available energy provided in HHO co-fire systems. It is up to the installer/owner/mechanic to tune the engine so that it can handle the increase in available energy. If left alone, most engine lines will actually increase the amount of fuel being sent to the combustion/compression chamber due to the increased oxygen being sensed by O2 sensors, etc leading to sub-optimal fuel economy gains (and even decreases in some cases.)

For those looking for a well-designed and documented HHO kit build, check out the folks at ZeroFossilFuel. I mention them b/c they seem to have put a considerable amount of time into their research, as well as their build. Certainly more than most.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for their site design

What I would like to be able to find on this forum (or others) are some people who can offer assistance or advice on tuning MB diesel engine lines for HHO systems, similar to what can be found here.

I'm looking at mod'ing my '84 300CDT w/ a homebrew HHO kit along the lines of a ZFF system. Just want to see if anyone on this forum has had success with hydrogen on-demand in diesel lines.

__________________
1984 300CD (Forest Green) 278,000
B99.9 / B50 (Summer / Winter)

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7...eselcut.th.jpg

Waynesville / Asheville / Pittsboro, NC

Piedmont Biofuels
Blue Ridge Biofuels

CP-please save your money. The HHO/Brown Gas generator thing is in fact a hoax. At present EVERY SINGLE test done using a dynometer to test some of the HHO generators have shown a decrese in MPG.

Laws of phycis do not change .You cannot ceate or destroy energy -only change its form and you cannot get more energy out then what you put in.

However if you do decide to believe in HHO fairy tales -I have a much better HHO generator that is wireless. Send me all the money you plan to spend on a HHO generator. I will use my new advanced wireless HHO generator to send energy over the air to your automobile. As soon as your check clears you should see a marked change in MPG. (Money -Poof -Gone)

Best results should be seen going down steep hills. The wireless HHO energy runs uphill-which is why the HHO wireless energy only works when you travel downhill. The more you drive downhill-the better your mileage. (Your results may vary).

This is typical of scams. They start with a fact that is correct. They then say "this means X" which is completely false and then run with this premise. Often times the rest of the chain of logic is correct, which drags in the more trusting types. But since the second premise is actually completely false the whole subsequent chain is false. But what they do is get people arguing about points further down the line. Let's look here:

> Under normal conditions, only about 25% of the energy stored in petroleum-based fuels is used for mechanical work

True.

> before being deposited into the exhaust line.

Kind of true but very misleading.

> Gasoline molecules are long, multi-chained branches of hydrocarbons that burn slowly, especially when compared to hydrogen molecules that combust with 3x the detonation velocity.

True but irrelevant.

> These hydrocarbon chains don't ignite oxygen all at once.

Of course not. Again, so what?

> Instead, they continue to burn after exiting the engine into the exhaust line and on out the tailpipe, where the energy given off is wasted as heat and emission products.

This is where they break down. The amount of original product uncombusted is immaterial. The implied link from above is that 75% of the fuel is unburnt and going out the exhaust valve which is completely false.

> That these molecules continue to burn even after they exit the vehicle should give an idea of available energy that is ordinarily wasted.

Yeah - very little is wasted due to this.

Now they start plugging some plan to recover this "wasted" fuel, which is at best 1 or 2%. And the plans all either use more energy overall than is recovered or actually burns more total fuel than was burnt before.

Even in the days of carburators the engines were about as efficient as was physically possible with the given design. The improvements in actual combustion efficiency in the past 20 years has really been very minor. Fuel efficiency has come from different engine designs, lighter vehicles, and better aerodynamics. Not from "better combustion."

Its sad that people fall for this. I guess the questionable quality of high school science is to blame.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

This is incorrect. There was a widely publicized test run by an investigative TV crew in Palm Beach this past summer. The test itself was run by a university professor. He was surprised too.


I think the issue is in shifting the thermodynamic equilibrium. No violations of the laws of thermodynamics.

I should point out that some of the noted skeptics in this thread did not believe that all of the diesel fuel is not burned in a typical cycle. I spent a good deal of time tracking down the scientific references for that. The moderator finally noted that the skeptics could not account for the common contamination of motor oil by diesel fuel.

Then there was the disbelief in significant mileage increases from lubricity additives for diesel fuel. Again much time was spent tracking down the scientific references for that.

Then there was the individual who attempted to mock someone for believing that the (potential) fuel value for bio fuels was higher than that of standard diesel fuel. I took the time to find a patent reference for the technique to convert the glycerin to fuel letting the bio fuel exceed the standard fuel.

I then spent a good deal of time tracking down the scientific references for the hydrogen controversy. It boils down to the extrapolation of results from high and then low levels to the extremely low levels that are in play with the boosting devices. I did not see anybody that did actual scientific testing of extremely low levels -- the extrapolation is simply assumed to be correct.

Check out MIT's work with Arvin Meritor. With the impending implosion of the local industry, though, I suspect that research has been put on hold.

In general I see a lot of "pseudo science" critiques going on by people who don't do their due diligence in backing up their opinions. It goes both ways.

Just a thought...

Check out SAE.org. Do a search on combustion research. It is a huge area of research. I suspect that you are old enough to remember CVCC from the 1970s. Enough said.

Yep, its sad that so many people are uninformed enough to waste money on these HHO scams.

Electrolysis has been around for over 200 years and these HHO scams have been around for over 70 years. What it can and cannot do is very well known to science. Improving internal combustion efficiency through a minute amount of hydrogen does not work. HHO pushers are well known for their "pseudo science", false claims and wild guessing as to how these things actually work. Its very rare for any of them to link to factual data that has been tested by a reputable source and is repeatable, because there is none.

The bottom line; save your money and use it on something that is actually useful, like fuel or an oil change.

Yawn.

We have been over this.

MIT -- land of seventy-two Nobel Laureates. Please critique their research.

Please.

Waiting.

I took the time to look up their journal references cited in their patents. Did you?

Waiting.

Yet you are intent on getting this thread locked too from your bickering about this HHO scam.

Unless you're using solar(or another free emission-less source of power) to generate the hydrogen(A fan on the top of the car / alternator doesn't count) it will be a waste of money. Even then, the time required to generate and store enough hydrogen to be useful would be time better spent wrenching on the car.

__________________
$60 OM617 Blank Exhaust Flanges
$110 OM606 Blank Exhaust Flanges
No merc at the moment

I think it is important to note that the outright rejection of the hydrogen technology by some people is fascinating in that they invoke "science" to defend same.

I think the reality lies between the extrema in the claims from both sides.

Remember, you were the gentleman that photographed the over-the-road truck with the boosting device on it. The head of the company that runs that truck is heavily involved with the government in promoting/testing fuel saving technology. They take scientific method seriously. Why not write to them and ask what they think? They likely now have hundreds of cycles of data.

I know you tested your device -- you did not reject the hypothesis as you predicted a decrease in mileage. Your results were actually positive. Bravo for taking the time to construct and test one. Just don't extend the results of your one trial cycle too far.