So here's a thought: What if you made the HHO generator run off waste heat AFTER the catalytic converter? Could be before or after muffler, your choice. Preserves laws of physics, waste heat is ALREADY generated, won't use any alternator current, may work towards muffler goal as well?

First run today.
 

I got my system in today. I guess I had my NaOH solution too strong. My current was about 15 amps but the unit got a bit warm and pushed more water out than it should. I did not run better yet. I have no EFIE or such, but I have a serious question.

There is a lot on the INTERNET about the need to lean the mixture out when running the hydrogen. If the hydrogen causes the fuel to burn faster why isn't there more discussion about how to retard the timing on computer controlled cars? So far that seems like a larger problem than the mixture to me. I am unconvinced about the claims that a cleaner burning engine appears lean to the oxygen sensor.

Just getting started. Not intending to hack the computer. Yet.

:confused: I thought it requires electricity, not heat. If you're talking about making the heat into electricity, nobody here has thought up a cost-effective way to accomplish it.

Also, that energy is not entirely free, though I bet it's free enough. Apparently cooling the exhaust pipes will lower EGV.

Coolant heat, though less hot, is better than free since you sometimes need to expend energy to get rid of it.

as long as the price of cornchips doesn't go up I'm all for it.

I guess my wordy questions are too obscure. I seldom get any answers at all so I am going to answer mine myself.

The only independent or third party verification of results that I have found on the internet is in this link.

https://www.hydrogencommand.us/Newsletters.htm

All the really positive results are with diesel engines and at higher power levels. I don't think this is applicable to my Saturn. If I cannot get a no load RPM increase I don't think this is worth a darn on my car. I tested this at 800, 1500, and 2300 RPM/. In every case I had a 20-40 RPM drop that was not recovered when the gas got to flowing. I am willing to do a lot of crap to my car but I draw the line at screwing around with this a lot more. Even the diesel engine results are questionable to negative at 25% load. Darn that is where my car cruises, 25% and lower. If I saw a faint flicker of positive I might pursue this further. The amount of hacking required to make a modern computer controlled spark ignition engine respond positiviely to this exceedes my interest level.

With hot air intake and Somender's grooves in my head there just is not enough low hanging fruit left to pick for this to do much good.

I am not saying that no conditions exist where this might help a spark ignition engine but in my case I don't see much chance of a return on this investment. I would rather work on improved aerodynamics and a possible electric assist.

That is my 2-bits for today.

Ernie

For those who think our government isn?t aware of this technology (they call it hydrogen injection) here are a couple of links.

https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-resea...Vs-Nov2007.pdf

This document from the U. S. DOT is from 2007 and lists hydrogen injection as a viable source to increase gas mileage and reduce emissions, though they have taken a very conservative estimate.


https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1977016170.pdf

Here is a NASA document from 1977, that talks about adding hydrogen injection to a gasoline-powered car to lean the consumption of fuel and reduce emissions.

You read this article and then be sure to read the replies to it.

I just found this forum and not surprised to find there is the believers and the non believers. I for one am a believer. I wish the ones who don't believe would use a section of the forum for We don't believe in HHO and post in that section so that the people who want to experiment with it can learn what they need to.. It needs to be stressed that SAFETY issues must be followed. Read a lot before you install.

The first unit I built gave me more power. I guess some think I was just wanting to believe. There may be some truth to the water decarbing the engine.

How many of you would drizzle water into your intake under a high throttle, You don't let the engine die... This will decarb your engine. This was told to me by an aero space engineer that worked at the cape. I personally like to use sea foam to decarb an engine.. This engineer is also experimenting with the HHO generator. He said he was monitoring his injector pulse and it did not change.. He had not adjusted any of his o2 or map sensor feeds to the computer either..

Any way I'll come back here because some of you believe. If you want to find some places that are more on the I believe side try Yahoo groups WATER CAR and Hydroxy

I just stumbled across this thread and wanted to jump in here and thank Road Warrior for his explanation (on page 1) of how it is possible to increase gas mileage using a HHO generator. It is the first time I have seen a logical explanation of how users seem to get something for nothing. It is the only logical answer - they don't. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what was said, but here's what I got out of it:

In order to generate the HHO, you need some extra power from the engine (to run the alternator). To get extra power from the engine, you step on the gas pedal a bit more which opens the throttle. Opening the throttle reduces pumping losses making the engine run more efficiently. So you use more gas, but not as much as you'd expect. You don't get the energy to make HHO for free, but for cheap. The HHO system makes fuel for the engine. There are energy losses in making the fuel (HHO), but these losses are more than offset by the increase in engine efficiency due to decreased pumping losses.

I didn't mean to make this a long post, but I just saw a potential problem with making this work in practice. My understanding is that the HHO is not stored but used as it is made. So let’s say you get onto the freeway and get to cruising speed. At first you will have to have your foot into it a bit more to run the alternator to make HHO. But as the HHO gets made and sent into the intake air stream the engine is getting extra fuel. So to keep your cruising speed you would need to back off of the throttle, thereby increasing pumping losses. Thus you are giving back some of the efficiency you gained.

Even so, I can see it being possible that there is still a net gain, especially considering the use of waste heat to facilitate the HHO generation process.

Just trying to get my head around this. Thanks to all the (constructive) posters for the help.

I believe it was around the year 1990 Galileo was finally pardoned for his criminal charges from when he made the silly claim that the earth revolved around the sun.

In an HHO system you arent CREATING anything. Water is a reliable fuel source it just needs a little prep work to make it ready to use.

I don't remember that in the news.LOL

Water is not a fuel source. Fuels have energy in them to extract. Water is already burnt, it's burnt hydrogen. To 'prep' it, or unburn it and make it into a fuel again, you have to put in energy to split it. The amount of energy you put in will ***always*** be greater than what you get out by burning it again, even if only by a very small amount. It isn't a theory, it's a scientific law that's been proven time and time again through careful observation and experimentation.

not really sure how water is burnt, i think my sister has done it once or twice in an attempt to make dinner.

But if you wouldnt mind explaining i would gladly listen.

Water is already burnt, water is burnt hydrogen. You burn things by causing oxygen to attach, and water is H2O (Two hydrogenatoms attached to an oxygen atom). When you burn the hydrogen, the end result is simply water, oxidized hydrogen.

You can't run a car on water any more than you can run a car on ashes or smoke. The 'fuel' is already burnt, and it requires a great deal of energy to convert that water back into a usable fuel. Energy that had to come from somewhere, usually by burning fossil fuels.

We only do hydrogen injection on our cars to boost the engine's ability to convert gasoline into work. Requires only a small amount of hydrogen, nowhere near enough to fuel the engine by itself, but it doesn't take too much energy to make the small amount so the gain is worthwhile when tuned properly.

Okay, i have stumped several professors of some pretty good schools.
They dont understand how water is burnt. Infact they arent sure how water is created...... they know many ways in how it is created but not in as abundance as what we have on earth. and in all the ways they had listed i never once heard burnt.

alright, that was a good answer :P

So i will now rephrase my poorly worded post from earlier.
Hydrogen is a good fuel source and when in an oxygen rich environment has a much more volatile reaction to fire. both of the gases can be found in water, it just takes a little work to separate them.......

Now that's a good way to say it. Mind if I take that and run with it?

You can't run a car on water any more than you can fuel a wood stove with ashes.

Less, in fact, because ashes usually have tiny amounts of unburned wood still in them...

That's the problem, it takes alot of work to separate them, more work than you get back by burning it. It's an inefficient way to use energy. You'd be better off using that electricity to charge a battery and drive electric than to split water, compress the hydrogen, store it in a tank, pump it into a car, then burn it.

And please, please don't say you can use the alternator in the car to split enough water to run the engine... please. =\

but what if you happened to have hydrogen inside the ashes??
that would be remarkably similar to coal... actually, if i'm not mistaking that would be coal.

Nope. Coal is mostly carbon.

Ashes are mostly random minerals that was in the tree/coal, and some carbon compounds. If you burned it well, shouldn't be much carbon left.

Then i guess its a good thing i'm not working with ashes :P

Ah, but you are. Ashes (and smoke) are what you get from burning wood; water (in the form of steam) (and other gases) is what you get from burning other fuels. They are both the output of combustion, not the input.

Yep, water is just hydrogen ashes. :)

You get water (and other crap) from burning gasoline and other hydrocarbons because the hydrogen in them splits off at high temps and reacts (burns) with the oxygen present.

Why are you guys on this thread?
I can tell that you already know all the secrets to the universe, shouldnt you be curing aids and cancer?
why dont you spend your time solving the world hunger issues? because you are obviously smarter then everyone else in the world.
infact i'm not sure how the human race manages to wipe their own butts without you there to let them know when they are doing it wrong.

and WTF?? comparing steam to smoke?
so steam is a form of water.... is smoke a form of wood?
you can say anything you want but i am very thankful that you arent right.

and for dalez... so your telling me that to burn something you have to separate the hydrogen and burn it with oxygen present by applying added energy like heat?

Yes. Smoke (along with ashes) is the burned form of wood.

So then what is smoke? Was it piped in by the special effects team?

Close. To burn something, you have a chemical reaction between (usually) oxygen and something else. Heat is not added, it's the result of the combustion.

https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...367/combustion
Oxygen + other reactive material in, heat and various material (maybe water [in the form of steam], ashes, or other) out. Combustion of hydrogen is the opposite of electrolysis: Electrolysis splits stable H2O into oxygen and hydrogen by adding energy, while combustion combines reactive oxygen and reactive hydrogen to make water and releases energy.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm in this thread to learn what I can, and teach others what I already know. Just because you can't "run your car on water" doesn't mean that electrolysis and on-board hydrogen/HHO/Brown's Gas generation are useless. It may be useful to enhance combustion, catalyze fuel, to store energy for later use, or for other purposes. It's awful hard to discuss it seriously with folks who understand basic chemistry amidst all the noise generated by miracle workers who claim to break the laws of thermodynamics.

Once it can be discussed rationally and seriously among people who are willing to look at it realistically, something might be learned.

[EXCESSIVE QUOTING REMOVED]


and when did i say you could run only on water??? your just looking to argue, and in your argument i turned you right back around to agree with me :p

As i mentioned in my other thread, I am not selling and i dont care for people that get on here to sell. I dont believe the people that are here selling. I also think they are full of it when they claim to run completely on water. I am here to answer questions and help people to reach the point that i am at on the hho research. But someone that wants to play intelligent and try to put down others simply because they dont understand it.
i dont know how far HHO can go, but at least i am willing to find out and not act like an idiot towards others doing something different.
so when someone decides to discuss this with me in a rational manner i will actually talk to them. but until then i'm through arguing with the flatterists.

In the subject line?

I haven't been making a major point of following this thread as a whole, just responding to individual messages. I don't know how we got here, but the point is...water is the result of combustion after heat is released, and splitting water requires all that energy (and more) to be put in.

If you are interested in learning something Lurch do some research, then come on back and you can be an authority, but you need an audience.

Fact
1.45 British Thermal Units of heat energy (didn't want to confuse you with an abbreviation) of hydrogen gas in 1 liter of HHO.
120,000 British Thermal Units of heat energy in one gallon of gasoline.

Fact
11.111111111111111% of HHO gas contains energy> the rest is oxygen, which contains no heat energy whatsoever.

Fact
1.45 BTU of heat energy will fire two cylinders on my 57.75MPG Civic VX one time each cylinder. which will move my car exactly 1/2000 of a mile at 60 MPH. Thats 5280/2000 feet on 1 liter of HHO.

Fact
Thats 2.64 feet per liter of HHO, or 2000 liters per mile.

As to the argument of HHO being a combustion enhancer. Current engine designs consume 97% of the fuel introduced into the engine. Your maximum benefit assuming perfect (impossible) combustion would be a 3% increase in gasoline conbustion efficiency.

Yep you could run your car on HHO, you only need a 2000 liter fuel tank to travel one mile.

Just put the hydrogen in a balloon and let the wind blow you a mile and you get infinite MPG.

Take the attitude and park it where the sun don't shine.

regards
gary

The Physics of Internal Combustion Engines

Lesson 1

Take the atmosphere, squeeze it into an area about 1/10th the original area, add a combustible substance and ignite the mixture.

Temperature rises to about 3200 degrees, which creates a sevenfold increase in pressure, from 200 PSI to over 1600 PSI which pushes on the piston and produces useful work.

No significant increase in BTU content of the fuel means no significant increase in peak combustion temperature and no increase in pressure=no more power.

regards
gary

Lol, who are you and where do you come up with the conclusion i'm getting attitude?

but since your throwing numbers let me fill you in on the right ones and NOT what you invented :p

came across an interesting article regarding the possibility of running an engine on nothing but HHO, aka hydroxy. There was much more to the article but I wanted to share the part of the discussion regarding the possibility of running an ICE on no fossil fuel. Granted, we aren't "there" just yet but it isn't outside of the realm of possibility. The aim of the article wasn't to say that the author is doing this but to provide information which strongly suggests that it could be done:



[REMOVED EXCESSIVE QUOTING FROM OTHER WEBSITES BECAUSE IT IS ANNOYING AND NOT BACKED UP BY FACT]

Your land speed record car is running on pure hydrogen which has 9 times the energy density of HHO.

The equivalent volume of Propane in a gaseous state at room temp has nine times the energy of pure hydrogen gas and 81 times the energy of HHO.

The BMW example needs 112 liters, roughly 28 gallons of cryogenically frozen LIQUID HYDROGEN to go 125 miles.

My car at the same speed needs 2.2 gallons of gasoline.

At your quoted expansion ratio of 848, and knowing your HHO is ony 11.1% hydrogen, your 125 miles would require.

112litersX848ERX9(percentage H2)=854,784 liters of HHO to contain the same energy as 112 liters of liquid hydrogen.

854,784 liters of HHO

or

4 gallons of gasoline (estimated for BMW at 31.25 MPG)

Note:
think Space shuttle when you get into any serious collision in any car with 112 liters of liquid hydrogen in a fuel tank.

You like to change fuels and bounce from one to the other in your long, wordy and unnecessary post. For the sake of those that are already bored with this, keep it simple.

I liter of Propane gas at room temperature
1 liter of HHO gas(not H2 with 9 times the energy density) at room temperature.

The energy content of each please?

regards
gary

hmmm... i dont think you actually read my post, if you didnt you wouldnt have made that last comment.. but maybe i confused you. but i doubt it seeing as how extremely smart and everything that you are.

The confusion stems from statements like;

"One researcher calculated via experimental data that hydroxy contains 60,000 KJ/m3 at 1 atm."

Simple physics class calculation.

Convert MJ to BTU
Convert cubic meters to liters.

Its been a while since I took Physics in high school, 41 years to be exact.

There is no variation in the calculations as long as the temperature is constant.

Any "other" researcher who predicts a ten fold increase in the energy content must be a part time community organizer.

Why read your post completely when the flawed calculations are obvious which renders the conclusion irrelevant.

BTU per liter HHO is 1.45, the same amount of energy you would get from lighting a single wooden match.

The measurements and quantities are well known and very precise, and have been so for over a century, recognized by some of the most brilliant people on the planet, as fact, repeatable and totally verifiable.

Thursday I drove my Honda from Williamsburg, Virginia to Virginia Tech and back, total mileage was about 625 miles at an average speed of 64 MPH. You can see my average mileage in my gas log that covers the last 8000 miles.

Unfortunately for the HHO dreamers you have to ignore the Physics of the situation to support your claims of dramatic improvements in economy and efficiency.

Even the thin thread of combustion efficiency enhancement, and assuming you achieved true Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition, you still can only extract 25% more efficiency out of IC engines without basic redesign of the engine itself.

Do you honestly believe the US military would ignore the logistics advantages of not having to haul billions of gallons of fuel all over the planet for military operations.

I guess it's time for the conspiracy theorey propaganda speech.

Do you drive your car off a cliff to prove the laws of Physics don't apply when you choose to ignore them?

Beam me up Scotty.

regards
gary

41 years ago, Then i completely understand you . your not worth arguing with, enjoy whatever you may consider this ;)

Thanx, I have actually built my own design that doesnt use an electrolyte, i have it hooked to my car 50% of the time when i'm not testing the ever loving crap out of it. the added power is amazing.

I believe in HHO. It allows for far leaner mixes to be used than normal, which is a great way to boost highway economy. What I dont believe in is products that claim to violate rules of physics. Sorry.

I completely agree, but I intend to figure out just how far we can lean the mix.
it is possible to run an engine on HHO, but that requires WAY more then i know how to make from a car.