Hi Garthr , we have assemled smack booster design and fitted to our 1000 cc petrol car . I drove about 175 miles ,it took 20 amps . can you suggest PWM to use in our vehicle . Kindly send us the wiring diagram and lets us know how to calculate the HHO LPM produced in our vehicle .

I see this evening that A Current Affair and their wheels magazine guru suggest this is all a scam. Is this a waste of time? Are we all nuts? I don't think so.
sincere regards.

I didn't do any good with a pwm, - tried 1 from jaycar but it got too hot and looked as if it would self destruct so i removed it.

update.

My hilux has been averaging around 40 mpg (14 kpl) (45% increase) over last few weeks, although this is not entirely due to running the hho but it would be a major contributing factor.

Can't really afford to switch off the unit to see how bad it is without it.

HI
I am new to this forum and only realy found it while googleing hho info. Is anyone in or near Brisbane and willing to share there experence with hho fuel with me?
Many thanks
Rob

didn't get to see that show, -what did they have to say?

Did see the today tonight report the other night, - they gave this technology a pretty good rap.
couple of young blokes had a setup on a EA or similar falcon, drove 100 km on 5.32 litres.

other std car they were comparing it to must have been pretty chronic tho, used about 20 litres for same run.

ACA bagged all forms of alternate fuel savers saying that they were virtually bogus. No tests or figures given. The wheels dude kept up talking about changing driving habits is the only way to make real savings. Unfortnately the guy putting the argument forward for water 4 gas type devices probably did not "look" the most credible of people to being demonstrating the potential of this system. He didn't look dodgey but he didn't exactly appear to be a professor either.

Today Tonight ran with the two young blokes running the setup similar to Garth's. There setup looked quite good. Small savings but no doubt positive ones. They (TT) at least gave it some plausible credit.

I have built a two pot setup but don't have an EFIE so it isn't hooked up permanently into my old Henry. It does produce gas but not in dramatic quantities. I believe that when connected the engine runs much smoother and quieter as others have experienced. Maybe my imagination.

I'll post some photo's one of these days.

sincere regards,

Hello all, I have been very interested in reading the posts on this forum.

I am making a business out of this concept as I have been trialling this on my cars over a 14 month period and have excellent results in economy, reduced emissions (harmful), increased performance, smoother and quieter engine and no carbon deposits.
As the HHO makes a complete burn in the combustion chamber no carbon deposits form in the engine and gradually cleans up the deposits already there hence returning the engine to better performance. Also a complete burn reduces pollutants going into the engine oil.

I started with a 1986 Nissan Skyline then progressed to a 1991 EB Falcon and now to a 1998 EL Falcon GLI. I can tell you without doubt that the concept works, I have been averaging 15-20% increase in economy across the three cars. There is no need to spend a lot of money on a system, mine are simple and effective.
I intend travelling around this country demonstrating my unit and making people more aware that there are advantages to be had.

Thank you

Hi guys,

Must say I'm very impressed with the civil nature of how everyone is interacting on this site.

I've just recently made a comment about your work on the Drive.com blog (http://blogs.drive.com.au/2008/06/the_petrol_price_myth.html) about petrol pricing and a very good counter argument was raised by a person calling himself "Dr Dave".

In his comment, he remained sceptical about the success of the work being carried out by the proponents of HHO from here.

I was wondering if those of you who've successfully implemented a home-made kit on their vehicle has offered say, the local university or TAFE, or someone who can perform tests independently. Seeing that the media have already poked their fingers in the pie and fouled it for the most part, perhaps if a peer review of the technology becomes available it might hold water when presenting the technology to the mainstream.

I did link back here from that site, and hope I don't ruffle any feathers by doing so.

Thank you for that suggestion. I will contact the NRMA technical dept. and see if they are interested in doing some testing.

Regards,
Noel

I did mention the concept to the engineers at Melbourne Uni where I work but I have been too busy to spend any time with them discussing it all. They have dyno tested Hydrogen gas engines before and are currently working on lpg injection systems. I really want to get them interested in R&D with HHO.

Hi Noel, sorry, I was replying in general to the discussion board. I didn't actually cite you, but I wish you well with the NRMA.

Do keep us appraised of your progress.

Cheers,

El Sledgo

I wish you well in your efforts there too, Rick.

Have you been keeping records since the start of your project?

I've just started mine but it's still in the prototype stage and progress is slow.

[quote="garthr"]Did see the today tonight report the other night, - they gave this technology a pretty good rap.
couple of young blokes had a setup on a EA or similar falcon, drove 100 km on 5.32 litres.

other std car they were comparing it to must have been pretty chronic tho, used about 20 litres for same run.[/quote

The second car they were comparing it to had big problems I would say.
I have had a EB Falcon with an Electrolyzer fitted and was achieving 9lts per 100k with that testing being two thirds highway one third city.

I now have an EL Falcon similar testing gave me 12.24 ltrs per 100 k without the electrolyzer. I will be doing another similar test run this week now with the electrolyzer fitted. If I can achieve the same as my EB I will be very happy. A saving of 3ltrs per hundred will be well worth while.

Having said that the Falcon that was using 20ltrs per hundred k was either very sick or figures were overstated. Also the 5.32ltrs per 100k was a spectacular effort or figures were overstated. I am not saying it is impossible by any means but would be dramatic by comparison with my testing.