Welcome to the HHO Forum

[eugeneg20]

i would like to know more about the KOH thing

[bandr60]

Folks, I also make sell and install HHO Generators and get more positive responses than negative, as far as gas savings. Typically to the tune of 6 to 12 mpg gains with just extenders, although I am currently using a pulse width modulator and defie. You can check out my website @ www.hydro-extra.webs.com I am currently experimenting with a brick in abath that the edges are sealed with cpvc and cpvc heavy duty lids.
I use 316L S.S. plates for the electrodes and 10 gauge wire with 40 amp. relays. I custom machine the lids and o2 extenders that are supplied with the kits and I also supply the bubbler and flashback arrestor. I have tried several different types of cells and this one has been the easiest to maintain and enjoy the benefits of running hho. I look forward to going on long highway trips so I can brag how few gallons it takes

[jim2272]

Newbie here. I own a '93 Chevy Cavalier 2.2L with 193K miles. I have an HHO kit. I have a couple of questions. Does Colorado allow HHO? I've searched the web and I can't find anything. If not I will remove the HHO gen when I have my emmisions checked. Question 2 - I would like to get a Scanguage, but they are for 1996 and up. Does anyone know of anybody who makes a similar indicator for 1993?

[OldBeaver]

Originally Posted by hhogen

Well, I'd like to steer this thread away from water injection of fighter planes and back to HHO. According to the education branch of the National Hydrogen Association, (H2&You), HHO or hydrogen fuel injection as they call it is proven technology.

http://www.h2andyou.org/caseStudies/injection.asp

Here's a quote from their website, "From 2003-2008, trucking and shipping companies logged over 50 million miles of real use and testing and hundreds of systems have been sold - including some to FedEx."

HHO is proven fail technology. I made two HHO generators. First proven to diminish revs of the engine, therefore, took more energy from the engine through the battery than the one it brought to combustion. One cell with 12 Volts. Consumed 30 A cool. After a while got warmer and warmer, spending more and more amperes.

Second generator I made following very good plans from the Internet used ten cells of about 1,5 V each, producing ten times more gas and spending only 20 A. Production was so high that I had to put an electric pump to blow gas out of the generator quickly, otherwise gas blowed water out, diminishing production surface.

Even so, engine didn?t gain power and diminished revs as well, but less that the first generator.
Problems: pump blower produced foam after a while, making production fail.

The engine was a 6 cil diesel, aspirated.

Mileage depends on many factors, so these guys that sell HHO kits or plans cannot claim "dramatic increase" of yield so easy. Thay have to prove. Mileage depends on:

Speed
Slope
Wind
Load
Temp of air
Traffic
Pave surface (diminishes a lot if not smooth)
Driving style

This is considering you are using the same car and fuel of course.

So to compare a car with and without HHO is practically impossible, because it is almost impossible keep all these factors fix.

Even now that I have a new car with a factory onboard computer that gives me real time mileage and mean mileage, it is very difficult to compare any mod effect (as using HHO) on mileage.

The only way is having such a computer installed, run the car on a smooth flat pavement, say for 10 km forth and back twice, WITH and WITHOUT the mod, for example the HHO generator, wit the same load, at the same speed hopefully cruise control, no wind and measure the mean mileage of both round trips.
To be valid, the measure must be carried out by independent referees, that don?t know if the car has the HHO generator ON or OFF. Not by the seller of the kits.

In the computer, real time mileage varies so much that it is difficult to trust it. So a long roundtrip is the only way.

There are guys that claim "dramatic improvement" based on nothing. I think they are sellers of a scam.

On the other hand, there are other guys that claim the Thermodynamics laws "prohibit" improve the yield of engines with HHO. I think they are wrong. Here is why:

Otto and Diesel engines uses oil as fuel. This fuel has chemichal energy inside their mollecules that need to be processed to be liberated. The process starts in the refinery. In the car the case of gasoline is mix with air, compressed and ignited. This process uses some energy. However, the energy we got out of the combustion is higher, so we get a possitive sum of energy in the car that we transform into work.
The battery is needed only to start the engine. After it turns on gas, we can shut off the battery.

The diesel is similar, however we do not ignite the fuel.

H2O is another fuel, that needs to be processed before to be ready for combustion also. Processing in this case needs not a refinery but we separate H20 into Brown gas or HHO. This requires a different process called electrolysis, that can be done onboard a car. Then we also use a battery to start the engine. Unfortunately, the energy we get from combustion of HHO is smaller than the electric energy we need to unfold it into H and O. In other words, onboard the car we get a negative sum of energy, making this fuel a unpractical.

Anyway, if we can make electrolysis using less energy, it may be of use. Or if we can separate water by another means than electrolysis ... or if we can do it outboard.

But I like think this things more deep but simpler than recall "superior laws" of Thermodynamics like a religion.

Therefore, for me, HHO is a proven fail in a Otto or Diesel engine, probably because electrolysis is made onboard. Maybe, if we had to make refining of oil onboard the car, we would get a negative energy balance too! So, there is any reason for a surprise here.

If you want, you can load yr batteries at home and make the engine work on HHO, but then, why not to use an electric car then? Electric motors are very efficient.

Conclusion: Water for fuel by generating HHO onboard is a proven fail technology.

[Dr. Jerryrigger]

Originally Posted by OldBeaver

HHO is proven fail technology...

Second generator I made following very good plans from the Internet used ten cells of about 1,5 V each, producing ten times more gas and spending only 20 A. Production was so high that I had to put an electric pump to blow gas out of the generator quickly, otherwise gas blowed water out, diminishing production surface.

Even so, engine didn?t gain power and diminished revs as well, but less that the first generator.

Did you do any testing of this other than on an idling car? A good controller is an important part of a good system. Most people who use a constant production setup "tune" it for highway driving engine load, which is a rather different animal than an idling car. If you set it up with a PWM you could tune it for idle. I don't know why any one would want that, but it could be an interesting test.

[Charon]

The thing about water that is often forgotten is simply that water is already-burned hydrogen. Making hydrogen and oxygen from water is the process of "un-burning" the hydrogen. "Un-burning" is usually done by electrolysis, because it is easy. But that "un-burning" requires at least as much (actually more) energy as was produced when the hydrogen originally burned.

[HHOExplorer]

I'm going to attempt to share some knowledge on what I know about this subject and would like to encourage people to experiment. It seems these days that so many people just accept what they are told, get out and try it!

I'd like to give OldBeaver some kudos for actually making an effort with HHO, from what I've read and experienced it can require hours of research and trial and error and there's no "One Size Fits All".

Also a quote from OldBeavers's response "Maybe, if we had to make refining of oil onboard the car, we would get a negative energy balance too! So, there is any reason for a surprise here."

I'm not exactly sure what he was trying to get at, but the technology (supposedly) exists to refine your own oil and is a whole different topic. Search: "GEET Engine" it works off a couple different principals and can done different ways, but the start of it is using vacuum pressure to draw vapors from combustibles like oil, gasoline and water mix. Something like a vapor carburetor - Happy reading on that!

From what I've read about HHO, unless you re-program the ECU(engine Control Unit)or make your own and have a ton of money for research development that the largest gains with HHO are on the highway. You may see some benefits in city driving, but on the highway you'll save the most.

Terms:
KOH = (Potassium Hydroxide) Highly corrosive and burns the skin, eyes and don't breath it! and wear gloves when handling. Works great as an electrolyte for an HHO cell as it keeps the stainless plates clean.

PWM = (Pulse Width Modulator) To me its a fancy word for a DC motor controller. Works excellent to control the amp draw of an HHO cell, in conjunction with and AMP gauge you can fine tune exactly how much draw you want.

As far as my own experience, I'm still in the tinkering and data gathering stage with my HHO project so I'm not going to post any numbers until they are accurate.

Feel free to email me. I can help answer questions if you'd like.

[Dr. Jerryrigger]

Originally Posted by Charon

The thing about water that is often forgotten is simply that water is already-burned hydrogen. Making hydrogen and oxygen from water is the process of "un-burning" the hydrogen. "Un-burning" is usually done by electrolysis, because it is easy. But that "un-burning" requires at least as much (actually more) energy as was produced when the hydrogen originally burned.

This is quite true and needs to be accepted before starting out. The basic premise is not "making fuel" but rather converting energy (at a loss) with intent of a gain. It's a field of many scammers, which has hidden the possibilities. Getting a gain from a this kind of system is very complicated and not worth trying unless you enjoy the struggle and have modest expectations. But please try if you are up to the challenge, others have gotten there.

[tungs10]

The proper way to evaluate HHO is to run an engine on a dynamometer test stand at a controlled speed and load. Fuel consumption is measured by taking the weight of a fuel tank with a quick disconnect fitting. Weight is taken before and after a timed test run. The difference equals the weight of fuel consumed. A three-way valve is used to switch the feed from a supply tank to the weigh tank and back again. That marks the beginning and end of the test run. This is all standard practice in any engine lab to measure what is known as brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC). The measurement is repeated one or more times at different HHO gas flow rates. This way, precise, accurate measurements are made under highly controlled conditions. This sort of evaluation has been done a number of times. This study http://www.hho-research.org/wp12.pdf reviews 8 such evaluations. Average and maximum yield values are calculated for each study. This yield value is an attempt to rate the perfomance of the HHO injection with a single number. The results of these studies differed widely. The best results were obtained by injecting a very small amount of HHO. This data and other results suggest that HHO acts as a sort of catalyst. Somehow energy may be diverted from waste streams to useful output which would not violate the laws of physics. In fact, that is the whole purpose of optimizing engine efficiency.