Anyone ever heard of "Hydrogen on Demand"?

[Kaiser]

For someone to try to argue that adding a combustable gas to a computer managed combustion engine and it not improving fuel milage is MORONIC. Fact of the matter is that i have made one now and im working on my second version(fits in the engine bay better) and i saw improved milage, however not the 60% some of these site may claim. Also two of my co-workers also built the same model i did and are also seeing about 40-70 more miles out of a full tank. Its not a bad gain when you consider all it consists of is pipe,hose,washers,gromets,bolts and some barb fittings.

Ok, the problems here is the generation of explosive gas via Electrolysis from water inside the vehicle as it moves. This means not having to find a pressurized hydrogen fill-up point. Keep that in mind.

Next, let's think about this: The creation of the gas by breaking VERY STABLE IONIC BONDS requires a pretty hefty amount of electricity. ALOT OF THIS ELECTRICITY IS WASTED AS HEAT. All that heat creates water vapor along with the "H-H-O" that is supposedly required by the site. After making all this water-vapor and "H-H-O" the owners run it in their engines and TUNE THEIR CARS TO BE LEANER.

Uh. This to me sounds distinctly like they are getting better gas mileage by tuning their engine to use leaner AF's, and if the H-H-O and water vapor are doing anything at all, it might be quench, to minimize knock and add more oxygen to make the fuel even leaner, but alot of them are already describing typical problems with overlean fuel mixtures, and their fuel-mileage results are really only coming up to prove that if you replace all relevant parts (Air cleaner, spark plugs, clean the system) drive less like an idiot and tune the engine to be lean, you'll get better gas mileage. This is all common sense. It doesn't prove anything.

Oh, and the only really moronic thing is the idea that you can just throw EXPLOSIVE materials into an engine and have it run better. Gas fumes ignited by a spark don't EXPLODE they actually BURN. Explosions are BAD for engines. Hydrogen doesn't so much BURN as EXPLODE. Big difference. Hydrogen in a controlled environment that is metered and injected with a spark and proper timing set could be used. In a regular gas engine, it's just going to explode.

[Vteckidd]

Ok, the problems here is the generation of explosive gas via Electrolysis from water inside the vehicle as it moves. This means not having to find a pressurized hydrogen fill-up point. Keep that in mind.

Next, let's think about this: The creation of the gas by breaking VERY STABLE IONIC BONDS requires a pretty hefty amount of electricity. ALOT OF THIS ELECTRICITY IS WASTED AS HEAT. All that heat creates water vapor along with the "H-H-O" that is supposedly required by the site. After making all this water-vapor and "H-H-O" the owners run it in their engines and TUNE THEIR CARS TO BE LEANER.

Uh. This to me sounds distinctly like they are getting better gas mileage by tuning their engine to use leaner AF's, and if the H-H-O and water vapor are doing anything at all, it might be quench, to minimize knock and add more oxygen to make the fuel even leaner, but alot of them are already describing typical problems with overlean fuel mixtures, and their fuel-mileage results are really only coming up to prove that if you replace all relevant parts (Air cleaner, spark plugs, clean the system) drive less like an idiot and tune the engine to be lean, you'll get better gas mileage. This is all common sense. It doesn't prove anything.

Oh, and the only really moronic thing is the idea that you can just throw EXPLOSIVE materials into an engine and have it run better. Gas fumes ignited by a spark don't EXPLODE they actually BURN. Explosions are BAD for engines. Hydrogen doesn't so much BURN as EXPLODE. Big difference. Hydrogen in a controlled environment that is metered and injected with a spark and proper timing set could be used. In a regular gas engine, it's just going to explode.

PLUS ONE