Some thoughts on HHO - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-25-2008, 05:43 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,259
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
Some thoughts on HHO

HHO by weight is 12.5% hydrogen. Thats your fuel, not oxygen. 2 parts hydrogen (atomic weight 1), to 1 part oxygen (atomic weight 16). I rounded the numbers off slightly to make the math easier.

Liquid hydrogen contains 1/3 the energy of liquid gasoline per gallon.

1 gallon of liquid hydrogen evaporates into 860 gallons of hydrogen gas (at 68 degrees F).

Thats 6880 gallons of HHO.

Take my VX as an example, it burns 1 gallon of gasoline per hour, in lean cruise at 55 MPH.

I gallon of gasoline vapor is 30 cubic feet at 7.5 gallons per cubic foot or 225 gallons of gasoline vapor.

Figure the lean burn AF ratio at 20 to 1.

That means it takes 4500 gallons of air fuel mix per hour at 55 MPH.

Now lets assume your generator is producing a gallon (very optomistic) of HHO per minute, thats 60 gallons per hour.

7.5 gallons of hydrogen vapor (12.5% of total HHO by weight) divided by 848=.0088433 gallons of liquid hydrogen divided by 3=.002811 gallon of liquid hydrogen, of the equivalent energy content of gasoline by equal energy content (1 gallon of hydrogen=1/3 gallon of gas).

You are adding 60 vapor gallons to 4500 (75-1) vapor gallons and only .002811 liquid equivalent (at 3 hydrogen to 1 gasoline) gallons of the 60 vapor gallons is hydrogen fuel, compared to 1 liquid gallon of gasoline.

Thats an equivalent energy content of 355 parts gasoline to 1 part hydrogen.

Obviously to achieve a 50% improvement in fuel mileage the energy is not coming from the hydrogen, and it can't come from the oxygen since oxygen has no energy content to convert.

All this math is from the internet and my calculations could be wrong, but I don't think so. Please feel free to correct the math.

If the hydrogen is perfectly recombining with the oxygen and forming a steam vapor it still doesnt make sense that 60/4500 additional humidity could account for the mileage increase. Superheating steam would also reduce peak combustion chamber temperatures and reduce expansion ratio (or use the heat created in the hydrogen combustion itself). I don't think that is even a facotor since the HHO starts as a vapor anyway, so it would have to ignite, condense and expand in the milliseconds it would take for the piston to travel 1/2 revolution from TDC to BDC.

In testing with premixed fuel and air perfectly atomized the net gain is 25%. Its called homogenous charge compression ignition and produces emissions so low no aftertreatment is necessary.

I would appreciate constructive comments, spare me the character assasination.

regards
gary
__________________

__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 05:55 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,259
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
I goofed, will correct.

regards
gary
__________________

__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 06:03 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_BEEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,831
first of all, before I even say anything, I want to say that I think that it takes too much energy to make the hydrogen than you will get from the hydrogen. a friend of mine was saying that he had a friend trying this out and his theory is ( remember this is from a friend of a friend and it is just a theory so it may be crap):


it takes a certain amount of hydrogen to make a difference and at some point the increased amount of hydrogen doesn't matter. this leads him to believe that there is a "sweet spot" where the generator is producing just enough hydrogen to create gains but not enough to suck the energy back from the alternator/battery. he said himself that he didn't think the gains would be as high as all of the web stuff is claiming even if you "dialed it in". he also went on to say that it is vehicle and motor specific so that the "sweet spot" for one wouldn't be the same for the other.


this has nothing to do with the math stuff that you found and I comend you for the research. I figured I would share what I had been told. I also posted some information that I had found on wikipedia about electrolysis of water where it said that the efficiency was only 35% or so (can't remember the exact figures). this always seems to be a controversial subject which is ironic because this site promotes some of the sites selling the stuff. still waiting for someone to do an A-B-A test on something or just "post a gas log" showing their extreme gains. I have a cavalier rated 25MPG mixed and I am getting 35ish. I would love to get 50s out of it with water. I just don't think it is possible.
__________________
Be the change you wish to see in the world
--Mahatma Gandhi



GasSavers_BEEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 06:09 PM   #4
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,259
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
There that should be correct.
regards
gary
__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 07:32 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
quadancer@bellsouth.net's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Quote:
I want to say that I think that it takes too much energy to make the hydrogen than you will get from the hydrogen.
Mygawd, is that statement ever going away? From what I've studied so far, it's not about the volume of gas over the volume of petrol liquid, it's not about the motor running on hydrogen (although that's possible) and IT'S NOT ABOUT MANUFACTURING ENERGY!!!
Post after post (if you will search) will show you that the hydrogen produced makes the petrol more efficient than it's normal 20% range. It raises the octane. It cleans the engine. If you could get a much higher octane gas for the same price as your regular, wouldn't you jump on it? ESPECIALLY if you had a MAP sensor enhancer to regulate the fuel mix?
That's as much as I've found so far, but anyone really studying this stuff will soon become a believer, rather than an armchair sceptic. I run more amps on my subwoofers than this thing will require. How is that hurting my production of free energy?
__________________
$1000.00 in parts can save you HUNDREDS in gas!
quadancer@bellsouth.net is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 07:52 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
Yeah, you figure it that way, it doesn't seem like it should add up...

What I'm thinking though is that while you burn gasoline at 25% or so efficiency, any H2 you get in there up to a certain point (25% according to MIT) is burning at near 100% efficiency.

It makes sense that it's engine dependant, because the big effect it seems to have is on flame speed, making combustion rapid enough that more of the energy in the gasoline as well as a high proportion of that in the H2 turns into cylinder pressure instead of heat. Ergo different engines with different strokes compression and rod ratios will have different ideal mixes for optimising power output...

Theoretically, you should be able to tune it a bit by retarding your spark, spark advance is only about power in as much as it allows one to fiddle the peak pressure to be at the optimum mechanical moment, some people seem to think "Oh no, less advance, that will suck for power" since factory advance is set conservatively and tweaking in a couple more degrees has been a staple "free power" recipe for years. So if you can get peak cylinder pressure sooner with a retarded spark, you may be able to tune-in whatever HHO mix you can make for best MPG.

A further effect of the mixture making pressure rather than heat is NOx is reduced to diddly squat (A technical term referenced to the "just about nothing" mark on the platinum iridium thumb at the national standards institute) , so you can lean out your fuelling quite a long way and not make NOx. When you add to that that even minor amounts of HHO appear to have the effect making the octane real high, it seems possible that you can have it running at obscenely low air:fuel ratios, like 25:1 and make enough power to move.

When it also appears that loading your alternator might play games with BSFC and "cost" you only 5% more gas to ramp output by 20% then it kinda looks like you're getting 8-16x as much out of the H2 as it should "cost". However, that's not quite the case, on it's own the H2 would get a max of 50% efficiency. What's really happening is that you're scavenging inefficiency from the gasoline side... there's a whole bunch of energy there to claw back.
__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 07:59 PM   #7
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,259
Country: United States
Location: wiliamsburg virigina
As I stated in the post concerning Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition.
It burns the fuel so completely there is no need for aftertreatment. All the fuel is consumed, 100%. It is being achieved as we speak under controlled conditions.

Your 20% figure sounds like the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, which on average is 35% for gasoline and 41% for diesel in engines used in automobiles. Tested under controlled conditions. Consult one of the hundreds of efficiency maps for IC engines, or for diesels.

These figures are from EPA documents and are calculated using very scientific methods. Hundreds of institutions WORLDWIDE have tested engines to come up with these figures.

The overall efficiency of a vehicle is more in that range, but that also includes idling which wastes 13 % of the total energy consumed. That's not the engines fault.


The best engines in the world drive the huge container ships.Their energy conversion rate is 51%. Its determined by calculating the work produced and subtracting that from the energy content of the fuel.

Can you clairfy exactly with data where you came up with the 20% efficiency figure. If you are sitting in your car with the engine idling and doing nothing, it's not because the engine is inefficient, its because you are not moving. No matter how much you make the engine more efficient you are still sitting there not moving.

Do you think Germany would not have used browns gas in Uboats in WW2, which would have extended their range when they were at war with the US?
Did they intentionally deny their U boat captains any advantage they could gain from range extension? They used any technology they could to win.

regards
gary
__________________
R.I.D.E. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 10:08 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_BEEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,831
you know, it also depends on where you are doing your research. I can start a web site that says you will stay healthier if you eat dog poo. it doesn't make it true but I can put it on the web and if I pay people enough money then they will advertise my web site on theirs. still doesn't make it true. I can quote people to say that they felt up to X% healthier by eating my dogs poo. still doesn't make it true. I can have a man that is 100 year old talk about how he has ate it for years. doesn't mean its true.

try researching where they DON'T sell a product or where they DON'T promote a web site. I hear people say they are tired of hearing it. show me a gas log. show some evidence HARD EVIDENCE that proves what you have works. seems like all the supporters for "WATER CARS" can't prove a thing.

if you could double the mileage of a car or even get a 50% increase, you would be a millionare in todays economy. why hasn't anyone cashed in on it. no proof. where is this car that is getting such great mileage. there are cars on here that run on just gasoline that are getting 60+ MPG. I think it takes a pretty smart person to get their car to do that. understanding physics, chemistry, aerodynamics and other such competencies. you'd think they would have heard about this "WATER CAR" that can make their car approach the 100 MPG mark. then they could go out for the new X-prize and win themselves 10 million dollars.

.....and all with a mason jar and some tap water.


*edit* quadancer, you don't happen to be selling these things are you? maybe for a really reasonable price?


*edit 2* I happen to notice that your research consisted of web sites (like this as you claim) and youtube and also ebay. no crooks there just good honest folks out to make some money right? try researching somewhere where they aren't using the old "used care salesman" tactics. start with searching for "ELECTROLYSIS" and maybe even "ELECTROLYSIS OF WATER". amazing what you will find.
__________________
Be the change you wish to see in the world
--Mahatma Gandhi



GasSavers_BEEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2008, 10:16 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6
Country: United States
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.I.D.E. View Post
As I stated in the post concerning Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition.
It burns the fuel so completely there is no need for aftertreatment. All the fuel is consumed, 100%. It is being achieved as we speak under controlled conditions.

Your 20% figure sounds like the efficiency of an internal combustion engine, which on average is 35% for gasoline and 41% for diesel in engines used in automobiles. Tested under controlled conditions. Consult one of the hundreds of efficiency maps for IC engines, or for diesels.

These figures are from EPA documents and are calculated using very scientific methods. Hundreds of institutions WORLDWIDE have tested engines to come up with these figures.

The overall efficiency of a vehicle is more in that range, but that also includes idling which wastes 13 % of the total energy consumed. That's not the engines fault.


The best engines in the world drive the huge container ships.Their energy conversion rate is 51%. Its determined by calculating the work produced and subtracting that from the energy content of the fuel.

Can you clairfy exactly with data where you came up with the 20% efficiency figure. If you are sitting in your car with the engine idling and doing nothing, it's not because the engine is inefficient, its because you are not moving. No matter how much you make the engine more efficient you are still sitting there not moving.

Do you think Germany would not have used browns gas in Uboats in WW2, which would have extended their range when they were at war with the US?
Did they intentionally deny their U boat captains any advantage they could gain from range extension? They used any technology they could to win.

regards
gary
they lost
greyduck69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2008, 03:47 AM   #10
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_RoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,652
Heh that's a new one. "X technology can't work because otherwise Germany would have come up with it 60 years ago to win the war."

They did come up with Nitrous oxide injection and "Washer fluid" injection, or MW50 as it was known.
__________________

__________________
I remember The RoadWarrior..To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time..the world was powered by the black fuel & the desert sprouted great cities..Gone now, swept away..two mighty warrior tribes went to war & touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without fuel, they were nothing..thundering machines sputtered & stopped..Only those mobile enough to scavenge, brutal enough to pillage would survive. The gangs took over the highways, ready to wage war for a tank of juice
GasSavers_RoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A shot with a mix... GasSavers_SD26 Diesels 23 03-13-2008 06:20 PM
Air scoop for mpg? ZugyNA Experiments, Modifications and DIY 10 12-05-2007 10:40 AM
Are you a believer in Peak Oil theory? Peakster General Discussion (Off-Topic) 47 12-01-2007 06:49 PM
BIG car Andy-Paul Transmissions and Running Gear 30 10-24-2007 02:25 PM
FFI GasSavers_MPGmaker Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 39 05-30-2006 04:31 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.