Comments on: Oxygen sensors for use with HHO

By: Jon

Jon — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 00:28:05 +0000

Hi Calvin,
A 20% increase, eh? What is your uncertainty, your error margin, in that figure? I’ll bet you it is about 20%. 8A at 12v is about 100 Watts, or about 10% of a horsepower, that is a lot of extra fuel you are burning just there to run the HHO machine.
To answer your question, no I have never built one, there would be no point because when I showed it was not working you would only tell me I had done it wrong, I could not prove that it did not work. You have to prove it does work, that is how science works.
Jon.

By: Calvin Hood

Calvin Hood — Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:39:33 +0000

I have a unit in my car and currently getting 20% increase. I do not use an EFIE. I do have a volo chip though. At 8 amps I am getting the 20% at 15 amps i start to lose it. Testing the inbetween now. The cars sensors do mess it up because it sees to much o2 comming out than what when in when you start to put to much HHO in.

The person who wrote this artical have you built or tested a vehicle with HHO on it?

By: Sid

Sid — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:45:44 +0000

Hmmm HHO i just finished my home made drycell want to test ofcouse will tell the results did i get some extera miles or not.
Some says use EFIE some says O2 extender will try but now widout it.

My EQ is

EFIE(set to lean) = greater economy = less power
EFIE(set to lean)+HHO = greater economy = greater power
greater power mean if only engine is get some extera fule from some where else
I think i should give a try

By: HoHOhoHO !!!

HoHOhoHO !!! — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:40:07 +0000

Thx man, you save for me 300$ and a broken engine.
Vote for a cleaner world.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:49:05 +0000

No NASA do not use HHO “technology”. Show me just one example of them using it. Just one. I know you can’t…

By: lex

lex — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 13:26:04 +0000

NASA use hho technology…………….

By: Jon

Jon — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:48:52 +0000

Ben, look up NPD, I’m pretty sure it is a description of you and, since you literally believe the word rotates around you, it is why there is no point whatsoever in trying to talk sense into you. Goodbye.

By: Ben

Ben — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 22:45:51 +0000

Jon, you are right when you mention that there will be extra drain on the alternator in order to produce the hho, correct, the key here is the hho burns far far better and faster than the almost heavy fuels we are forced to use.
Compare a simple auto bulb, the old fashioned ( pre halogen ) bulbs were absolute rubbish you needed 110 watt bulbs and had to upgrade the fuses to see the road at night, then came the halogen which were much brighter, far less power consumption, then again came the Xenon gas bulbs, again more powerful than the halogen and way way more than the old fashioned bulbs of the 60′s and 70′s. all this means that nothing s set in stone, there’s always room for improvement.
Scientists did all believe that the world was flat, that we could not fly, steel couldn’t float, and many many more, what baffles me and a few others above, is how someone that claims to read books, has such little knowledge, peripheral vision of what has happened and will clearly keep happening as the vast majority of people are resistent to change if not fear it.
Get a girlfriend, Jon, get out of the house and open your eyes.
I hope people like you aren’t educating our children or in any position of power.
Jon, It goes without saying that to produce hho and run an engine solely on hho is not totally negative, more power is consumed during production that the energy or power produced, again the keay here is that the hho does make the combustion within the chamber more complete due to being faster, far faster ( do you have any idea why lead was put into petrol ? there wasnt any in there until the mid 30′s if I’m not mistaken, although it could be later ), since then it has remained as part of the fuel until its replacement.
Oxygen burns far faster than petrol, it is a very very well known fact, you can find that in your books.
The object of the idea is that hho makes the combined ( traditional fuel and hho ) combustion faster and by default more complete.
The only reason all the fuel doesn’t more completely burn in an engine’s combustion chamber is that the rpm of the engine makes for a very limited time to burn before the piston pushes the semi burnt fuel out of the exhaust valve into the exhaust pipes. I built a couple of choppers, and had very short exhaust straight through pipes, you will never guess what would come out of my pipes as i revved the engine.
in these units, the hho is planned and designed to be used as a booster ONLY, and it does make an engine with a combined fuel ( traditional fuel + hho ) more efficient, a slight increase in power unless you overdo it with the adjustments.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:27:03 +0000

“thewonn”, As I have said before, the proof is not in the pudding, it is in the science lab. On every single occasion that this “technology” has been tested in the lab it has been found to be nonsense.
If I did build one and test it and find it to not work, what would you say then? Would you say I was right all along? I don’t think you would.

By: thewonn

thewonn — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 23:05:55 +0000

HHO
the proof is in the pudding. Research it, build it, test it, then document your results. Only after that will ‘you’ be satisfied. It takes alot of time,money, and patience. I am neither pro or con, but, after all of my experiments, I have had great results. My unit is on a 2003 saturn vue, and i have gained 50% ingrease in mpg without any efies or sensor adjustments. I have also built a hydrogen torch that will cut anything and melt cement…..so it does burn.

Try it 1st before you comment on it.

[link to thewonn's web site selling HHO removed by Jon]