Hydrogen Fuel Cell on my Prius gives me 65mpg+ going 65mph

"we" do not have alternator ...

Well you are not real either .. so just go and do a "controlled" test that is you know technical scientific (not scientest) ... and you can measure thing otherwise jut enjoy and keep paying for the water ... you could have spent that 450 on something else ... but it is OK

When you have other then faith in this "device" which makes HHO dry fuel, please show us. put the car on a dyno with and without the magic device and let us all see. I do believe in controlled experiment and many others including I am sure the toyota engineers ... (maybe yoru scientest not )

man you just keep believing ... show some numbers put your car on dyno machine if you so sure that is not more than the 450 you already paid .. ... let us all see

otherwise this is simple a religion you do not even offer a theory how this supposed to be true YOU just present a "scientest" website and your video ... please you ONE or TEN driving test is NO proof ... that is just faith ... most of us do not have ...

I probably can get that mpg on that route with my car without ANY HHo device ... and then what ??? that proves nothing put your car on a test machine and let see ... unless of course your purchase of the device prohibit such things guess why ???

 

The laws of physics apply even with the Prius...

 

If you defined Sunny so that it happened at night, I would criticize you just as much as defining Electrolysis as a Fuel Cell. They are opposites.

 

How about giving him some benefit of the doubt?

I know it shouldn't work, but perhaps it does.

Doing 65MPG@65MPH is impressive. The best I could do at that speed was 55MPG.

 

Simply posting a picture of this miracle device installed in your vehicle would do wonders to increase the credibility of the thread. as-is, a youtube video showing (who knows what???), and a sheet of paper with some numbers scribbled on it is testing the patience of many of the members here who are used to very intense data collection, analysis, hypothesizing, sharing of information, and the general subscription to something resembling the scientific method.

i want to believe you, very badly. I suspect there are many others here too. but you need to give us more info, more evidence, more of a back-story and more pictures. And above all else, we need more credibility.

 

I didn't get that from the video I watched, I was more commenting on the video itself. For what it is worth, my mileage has increased, significantly, the more I've driven my car. My first year with the car (March 2010 - March 2011), I averaged 58.2 mpg. My second year (March 2011 - March 2012, I averaged 60.7 mpg. My third year (March 2012 to Present) is 64.0 mpg (but this will decrease come winter time).

Point being this, your mileage will increase as the car breaks in, the weather warms, the tires wear, and you become increasingly familiar with the car. Don't discount these items.

 

Or road surface differences. Long patches of concrete are very nice compared to chip seal or old asphalt.

 

It isn't really that it shouldn't work. If the Hydrogen increased the burn efficiency of the engine (somehow), it could, in fact, do what it claims. Without breaking any laws of Physics. But we would still need evidence. Anecdotal, non-controlled driving isn't going to convince anyone, nor should it.

 

My wife has accused me of making whirling vortexes of brown gas.

 

Nice analogy. Except that Galileo was technical, was brilliant, and spent years compiling the scientific evidence to support his theory. The burden of scientific proof falls primarily to the one presenting the theory. He also wasn't trying to sell a product based on his assertions.

The Prius of course doesn't have an alternator, but it does have a dc:dc converter that provides the same function. The result is the same in either case. A 1000W stereo will degrade your gas mileage, and so will this device. There is no such thing as free energy. With an alternator, the increase in electric load creates mechanical resistance, making the alternator harder to turn resulting in the engine burning more fuel. In the Prius, the dc:dc converter draws current from the HV battery, which has to be replaced by the ICE driving MG1 as a generator. A 1000W stereo at max output will consume 1000Wh per hour, divided by the efficiency of the system. For the engine/alternator or enginer/dc:dc converter efficiency is probably 20-30%. So that 1000 W stereo will consume somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000-5000Wh of gasoline per hour. The same is true of this 400W device, meaning any improvement it creates has to overcome this energy deficit used to drive it.

Based on the Prius simulator data (which has generally been proven to be quite accurate) here: Prius Palm Mileage Simulator the cruising power required in a Gen 2 at 65mph is 215.5Wh per mile. At that speed the efficiency of the Prius ICE is exceptional at ~38%. So gasoline consumption would be estimated at 567Wh/mi. The EPA agreed value for gasoline power equivalency is 34.02 kWh/gallon. So 567Wh/mi would be 0.01667g/mi, or 60 miles per gallon. The EPA highway rating for the Gen 3 is 6.667% higher mpgs, so one would expect the Gen 3 to be in the neighborhood of 64mpg cruising at 65mph.

The burden of scientific proof is on the inventor, doubly so when you're trying to sell something. Anecdotal driving results are pretty meaningless. There are far to many variables to control, not least of which is tester bias. A controlled with and without engine load efficiency map conducted by an independent test facility would be at least a starting point for a discussion.

Yup, a 4W hand blown carbon filament bulb that's never power cycled (basically what kills bulbs) and even has its own backup generator has lasted 110 years setting a world record. That's neither statistically significant, or relevant to what most people want in a light bulb (cheap, bright, turn it on and off whenever I feel like it). Most people won't even shell out the $20-30 for a quality LED bulb that is well demonstrated to save them money over its substantially longer life span. I agree planned obsolescence is plenty real, but its as much our fault as consumers as it is anything.

Basically all you are confirming is that you ascribe to conspiracy theories, and "want" this thing to work really badly which does seriously call into question your objectivity.

Rob

 

He said LA. That means hills and ethanol in your gas. Since its round trip it wouldn't do it.
Not that I truely believe this device is doing much in the prius. If it is, toyota would be foolish not to just buy the company and put them in all their cars.

 

Nice use of false equivalency and presumed causality there.

There are two related methods used in studying complex systems like weather, or vehicle efficiency. Direct observation, and modeling. If you can look out the window and see that its sunny, great you know its sunny. But you don't know why. If you can't look out the window, for example if you are trying to predict future behavior then the best you can do is use a predictive model. Observations are limited by the ability to control variables, and observe with affecting the result. Modeling is limited by the assumptions that go into the model. Limiting uncontrolled variables will help generate more meaningful data. Correlating the model against past observations and refining it will result in a better model, better able to predict future behavior. Randomly guessing that it will be sunny in LA tomorrow and being right half the time proves nothing, even if the model happens to be wrong on that particular day.

The same is true for how these devices are often tested and marketed. Vehicle efficiency is a highly complex system, with many variables that are difficult to control. We see this all the time in the vast difference in mpgs reported by different drivers of the same car, or even the significant variations the same driver sees tank to tank or trip to trip. So putting a gizmo on your car and seeing better mpgs, and then assuming causality is about as meaningful as guessing tomorrow will be sunny. To establish causality requires direct testing with as many variables controlled as possible, and with enough statistical significance to factor out the effects of variables that can't be controlled and is given more credence by a theoretical model to explain why the causality is true, and why the control of variables is valid.

Manufacturers of these devices seldom seem interested in rigorous testing. Third parties who have conducted rigorous testing seem to invariably come to the same conclusion. Here's an example:
Why Water Won't Improve Your MPG: A PM and Dateline NBC Investigation - Popular Mechanics

"In fact, if you look at the EPA tests with the system switched on and then off, there's a tiny increase in fuel consumption when the system is turned on. I attribute this to the 15 amps or so of current the electrolysis cell consumes to produce hydrogen."​

​

I don't claim that there couldn't be something to this idea. I merely observe that there seems to be far more theoretical evidence and actual controlled measured data to suggest that these particular device on the market don't work as advertised.

Rob

 

Some people actually did test this kind of device and guess what they found ....

Why Water Won't Improve Your MPG: A PM and Dateline NBC Investigation - Popular Mechanics

 

Interesting part of the PM review, that along with some possibly illegal mods to lean the mixture, the system can improve fuel economy. Now we know why OEMs aren't using it.

 

That is interesting, didn't see that part. Lean burn makes more sense than anything the hydrogen might be doing. Honda runs up to 22:1 in their lean burn engines as I recall, so not clear the hydrogen has anything to with it. As I understand you can run any engine lean and improve mileage, its just hard on it (particularly the valves) and tends to blow a ton of emissions. Particularly for a generic box added onto different cars of different makes and engine designs.

On the other hand I believe this full system is the same one they put on a dyno and got no improvement.

Rob

 

Those longer lasting incandescent light bulbs also have lower energy efficiency than the common 750-1500 hour versions, so consumers must increase power to get the same amount of light. Considering that the energy to power common incandescent energy hogs costs an order of magnitude more than the bulbs themselves, the long life versions are an example of 'penny wise, pound foolish'.

 

DTraveler,

Did the added link to the Popular Mechanics article give you insight into the strategy of the HFC? If we assume that the article is accurate and that any fuel economy increase is due to leaning out the gasoline mixture which has a consequence of tampering with the car's emission control system, are you still advocating the purchase/use of this device?

Thank you to SZGabor for posting the link, it was an informative read.

 

The PM article has "several" things installed the HHO thing one of them ... to be correct the hydrogen cell device discussed here in itself DOESN'T alter anything. This device specifically states that it doesn't alter anything fuel or ignition .... etc. So in this instance emission probably will not be affected. And probably does absolutely nothing at all for a mere $450 plus $25/5000 mile. Great deal indeed ... and the user drives better (probably unconsciously just because watching the mpg )

OP a SGII is only $150 dollar (no refill needed) and if you learn how to use that to assist your driving your mpg gain probably would be 5 mpg easily depending how conscious you were before.

Thanks for the credit I just "quoted" the link from Rob miscrm ...

 

I was waiting for someone to point that out. You can buy long life versions of regular incandescent light bulbs. They are designed as though they were going to be used at a higher voltage, about 135volts IIRC, so on 120 volts they run dimmer and last longer. In commercial quantities they cost about the same as standard bulbs. Cost per lumen-hour when you add up bulb cost and electricity cost is considerably higher though. They used to make sense in locations where it was inconvenient or expensive to change bulbs. Now, a good CFL or LED bulb would make more sense.

 

I had the same kind of cheesy water injector on my 1970's Chevy Vega ... I mean I had it on there before the whole car fell apart. I call that being double stupid.

SGH-I717R ? 2