Welcome to the HHO Forum
 

HHO has been touted by many as beneficial. Others are skeptical.

However evidence seems to be lacking.

Therefore, this forum has been created for discussion of HHO.

Supporters of HHO are encouraged to start gas logs, and read the "experiments" section for guidelines how to make a convincing post.

Those who don't care about HHO can ignore this forum.

As always, spamming etc. is not allowed.

-Bob C.

My Father used to take me to the Reno Air Races back in the 1960s, and he would tell me how the fastest Unlimited planes used water injection to give them a boost in power. Today, I went to one of the HHO websites and they also discussed how the WWII fighter planes used water injection. This really makes me believe that an HHO system can work.

I have not tried it, but I sure would like to hear from anyone who has installed one.

Thanks.

Water injection is not HHO.

I second that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

Maybe the welcome thread should be stickied?

That Wiki article doesn't exist, FYI.

Here's a quote from the article I read on a website that sells HHO kits:

"Our kits use a vacuum driven bubbler - first used on fighter planes in WWII - to draw Brown's Gas and water vapor into the engine manifold where it combines with the hydrocarbon (gasoline) fuel. The amount of Brown's Gas and vapor being drawn into the engine manifold is very small - less than 0.25% - but its effect on the power output of the gasoline is dramatic."

-watertogas.com-

Are you guys saying that an HHO system doesn't create Brown's Gas?

Can you guys please backup your statements.

Water injection is used as a knock inhibitor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_injection_(engines)

HHO(Brown's Gas) is the Hydrogen and Oxygen created from the electrolysis of water that is supposed to increase the burn rate of the contents in the combustion chamber and increase mileage.

That's the link he was trying to do.

Thanks, dk. All I'm trying to say is that a method similar or identical to HHO is used in fighter planes and air racing, and they call it "water injection."

Water injection is totally different - the water is injected as straight water, in order to help control the combustion and reduce detonation. Water injection can be done with a regular windshield-washer pump as your only equipment, no fancy chemical reactions.

It's used especially in racing applications with a "boosted" (i.e. blown/turbocharged) engine. When you are really pushing a motor to the hairy edge, a bit of water can help keep things under control.

-BC

i agree ,,,,i used that way back

Does anyone ever do a search before saying something like that?

I didn't make it a "link" so you had to copy and paste... you probably missed a character, or your browser did something dumb with the characters. Someone just after you linked to it, and you still didn't read it.

Water injection bears no relation to HHO at all, AND HHO was not used in old fighter planes and race cars, water injection was.

Also, there's another type of water injection that is NOT HHO, but does work, but it is a special type of engine. One of several types of six stroke engines injects water into the cylinder (without fuel) after the fuel has burned and the piston is backed in the compressed position. The heat in the engine instantly vaporizes the water, turning it to steam, pushing the piston and giving you a "free" power stroke. It also cools the engine (the "free" power stroke comes from converting waste heat into useful energy by vaporizing water).

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.

https://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."

hi guys....have been reading what is being said about HHO..and guys it is not new technology, been around for years...back in New Zealand where I come from, we had been using alternative technologies for years, as a country we did not have enough of our own oil reserves so were caught by the short and curlies and had to import all of our oil stock to refine into diesel and petroleum products. As far back as the 30's and 40's other sources of energy were being investigated. As a kid I recall coal gas being made and used in domestic and industrial burners. CNG...compressed natural gas we mde out of the numerous gas deposits we found offshore, that was in the 70's and 80's with the last of those reserves finally running out in the early 90's. My work in the engineering trades saw me mix and mingle with a whole heap of inventive types who looked at everything..and in the 90's I knew people who were making HHO..it was seen as a possibility then but never took off. However the principle came from the industrial based Hydrogen cutting torch principle using 230 volts and eventually was modified to run on 12 volts, I recall many guys trying to get engines to run on it solely, and they were never able to produce enough clean HH without the O to make it worthwhile. However in the last 6 years the combination of HHO into a standard petrol or diesel powered engine has changed the whole ballgame. The 'supplementory' effect of adding HHO to an ICE - (all these acronyms make you think)....lol...has the effect of encouraging the petrol bsed fuels to burn faster and harder and hence produce more bang for your buck..and that is what is so rewarding, not to mention a better burn producing less emmissions and hence cleaner burner vehicles. No guys and gals, the day of the HHO assisted vehicle is here to stay. Trust me is does work. I am presently making and installin a system into my own car..the entire system needs a HHO generator, using 316L stainless anodes and cathodes, an EFIE..to control the oxygen sensor set into the exhaust of todays cars that controls the injection system, without this EFIE control - todays engines will contiue to increase the fuel ration in an attempt to make the engine supposedly run clean again, infact we are leaning out the mix and the oxygen content of the exhaust will be leaner as a result, because of a more cleaner efficient burn. Also to control the current drawn by the generator...12 volts is sufficient, the current is controlled by PWM...pulse wave modulation, the same way you control the speed of DC motors. If you connect the electrolysis generator direct to the car battery, it will work, but as the unit stay on, it heats up and the resistance of the electrolytic solution is reduced and so the current drawn goes up...we want to control the current and maintain a steady production of HHO and not have a heavy current draw on your cars electrics. Asides from the HHO electrolytic generator, the EFIE and the PWM, all you need is water, some sodium hydroxide or similar for the electrolyte, some wire to connect the whole lot togeather and some time to enjoy the pleasure of getting 20 to 50 percent reduction in your fuel consumption. And this is NO joke.

ciao for now...

Did you put a good bubbler on it?

So why not start a gaslog on the site and show us it works?

-Jay

9 times? Do you have any idea how much data there would have to be proving that for even 3 people here to believe that enough to spend money on it?

9x and 180 MPG. That is a little hard to believe. If it can be proven that it works, and without costing a fortune I may be interested, but I am a tough sell. I already got bitten buying snake oil before. Years ago I spent ~$70 on a Tornado for Rusty. Hard to believe but I think my mileage actually went down with it installed. Darn thing is sitting on a shelf in my parent's garage. I'd throw the damn thing away, but I spent $70 for it. It currently serves as a reminder to be cautious on what you actually spend money on.

-Jay

But the problem lies here. You are right, the computer either needs to be hacked, or tricked. If you install a whole bunch of stuff to trick the computer so it will "allow" stuff like HHO to work, that in itself gains mileage. I would like to see dyno data for a vehicle with a tricked computer running HHO, then turn off the HHO and just let the car run on the tricked computer. My guess is that the 2 dyno runs would be very close in mileage. Anyone can lean an engine out and get better mileage, but the trick is to do it without doing long term damage to your engine. The money saved on gas probably pales in comparison to the cost of an engine rebuild or replacement vehicle. Trust me on that one. My sister's old Dodge Aries was running lean (got great mileage though!) and it blew a hole in one of the pistons one day. The car only had 98,000 miles on it. Dad had delusions that he could get that car running again. Darn thing sat in his driveway for 10 years before he finally gave up. Replacing a piston is niether cheap or easy.

-Jay

How does your kit produce monatomic hydrogen and monatomic oxygen? How does it keep the monatomic hydrogen and oxygen stable? Can you describe what it does so that a person who only had two semesters of chemistry in high school 35 years ago might understand it? And explain just how it will make a car go 50% farther on a given quantity of fuel? In your own words with no hype?

I don't mean to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand how your system is supposed to work. Your descriptions haven't given me much to go on, neither has your website.

73

pistons are not cheap, but the easy part depends on who you are and what engine your working on :p

hey Bob
 

Hey bob,
I keep frying starter solenoids (they are getting too hot) dose a PWM stop the wires from getting so hot?
Tom

i would like to know more about the KOH thing

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

Re: Welcome to the HHO Forum
 

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?

Water as a fuel: I tried it. It works ...bad.
 

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.

Re: Water as a fuel: I tried it. It works ...bad.
 

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.

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.

Experimenters?? Shared Knowledge
 

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.

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.

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 https://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.