If they claim that HHO combustion results in CO+H2O(gas)+O2, then the most precise technical term for their claim is bull*hit. Carbon is not a part of HHO at all.
If they mean that there will be O2 along with H2O and CO2 in the exhaust, then it’s absolutely right. My point is that the excessive O2 will not come from HHO (see the explanation above), but from outside the car – as in the process without HHO module.

The bottom line, O2 sensor will not show elevated O2 level because of HHO, and those who sell EFI adjusting devices are just scammers that capitalize on high gas prices and people's ignorance of basic science.

 

It would be great if you could post of some pictures of his setup. Is he using modified O2 sensors?

 

Carbon is in the gas. None of the guys working on this project are running completely off of hydrogen. Instead, they feed hydrogen into the fuel line. Carbon Monoxide will still be given off, just as any gasoline vehicle. But because there will be hydrogen and oxygen fed into the lines, the exhaust will be cleaner because less gasoline is being used, and thus less CO.

 

From Page 2 of this thread
Perhaps I have it backwards and there will be less O2. Now I'm confused on what a lean burning gas is and what a rich burning gas is.... oh well.

 

danmaz...according to your gasoline equation there should be no oxygen in the exhaust either. If thats the case, O2 sensors should be pointless. But sadly thats not the case. Gas doesnt burn at 100% efficiency in a combustion engine so there is O2 in the exhaust. Now with electrolysis, you are adding un-metered air into the engine (oxygen that wasnt detected by the MAF). Now just like gasoline, the hydrogen wont be burned at 100% either, therefore you have oxygen in the exhaust that wasnt initially accounted for.

Like I said, Im an engineering student, we learn the 'real' world, not the ideal world that physicists and chemists think we should live in. The formulas you learn in textbooks are only the case in a perfectly controlled situation, in the real world there are thousands of factors that those formulas dont account for. For example in your gasoline equation, you arent accounting for nitrogen, which is 70% of the air we and our engines breathe.

 

thank you, even though its been awhile since ive done anything with this project i am still planning on finishing it. Right now I need to take my car to a shop to get a O2 bung welded for my wideband. Once I can meter my AFR, I will continue. Im hoping using a WBO2 and my VAFC-2 will be enough to run hydrogen and gas at proper mixtures.

I know its disappointing its taking so long, but if i ever get good results down, I will post a new thread with pics/results since this thread is cluttered with arguing.

 

Oh, the equation is very much true. And, yes, the mission of O2 sensor and other components of EFI is to minimize the amount of the unconsumed gasoline. But do you really think that you’ll gain, let’s say, 5 more MPG for an otherwise 25 MPG car by reducing the amount of currently (without HHO) unburnt fuel vapor? This would mean that today at least 1/6 of the gasoline goes through the exhaust to the atmosphere. Multiply this by number of cars and driven miles and you’ll get rivers of gasoline flowing on the streets and air full of explosive fumes.

In reality, in modern EFI vehicles almost all the gasoline is combusted. Hydrogen is much more explosive, so (for any practical purpose) all of it will burn, therefore no need to adjust the sensor reading.

 

I didnt say it was wrong, I said in the real world that equation doesnt account for everything, nitrogen being one of those things.

If you think our cars are already so efficient, then explain why other people are already seeing significant mpg gains.

Oh, and heres a quote from wikipedia:
"Modern gasoline engines have an average efficiency of about 25 to 30% when used to power an automobile. In other words, of the total heat energy of gasoline, 70 to 75% is rejected (as heat) in the exhaust or consumed by the motor"

If youre going to bash wikipedia as not being a reliable source, then feel free to find a reliable source that says otherwise.

 

Plus I just failed emissions, and the exhaust is rich, I know for a fact efi doesn't burn almost all the fuel, that's why you have a catalytic converter. I got new plugs and a new cat prior to failing and the car was on the stock map through the emanage. The point is just throwing the fuel cell on the car won't do much except burn cleaner, the mpg gains come through limiting the air fuel mixture the ecu sees, this will cause the computer to inject less fuel but the vehicle will be supplimented by the hho even though there is less liquid fuel being injected. That's where the gas savings come in. We can't account for people that have no ecu control.

 

Wikipedia’s numbers are quite true. And as you can read by yourself the energy is lost by heating the atmosphere and not by enriching it with fuel fumes – contrary to what you stated a few posts ago.

As to what others say... I hope someone will dyno-test his car under the same conditions with and without HHO. Who knows, I might actually start building my own module after that.

Those who actually adjusted the O2 sensor, in effect run lean and in some conditions this leads to better MPG. Unfortunately, this also leads to failed emission tests (due to elevated level of nitrogen oxides) and engine problems.

 

Good thing there is no emission testing in TN.

n0ypi, is there any way you can create a diagram for your 6 cell fuel cell? I can't grasp how you have it "wired" from cell to cell. I would like to start making one of these. Also, where did you buy your acrylic?

 

Wow, I haven't posted here in a long time.

75% is not rejected as heat. If you compare this cycle to its maximum efficiency, say to its carnot efficiency, you would realize that its max % would be somewhere near 60. So at 25-30% total efficiency is really closer to 50% actual efficiency.

These companies prey on people having not had an engineering type of education. You'd have to take a few thermodynamics classes to really understand what is going on.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Hydrogen by weight has more energy than gasoline. So, yay, right? Nope, because 1kg of gasoline takes up a small space, while the hydrogen takes up a space almost 10x as large. So, to get the energy necessary to replace any of the gasoline and up the efficiency and more power, you'd better be carrying around a lot more than a tiny little bottle filled with water. So, by mass, Hydrogen is better. By VOLUME, it is vastly inferior. There is no other substance currently that can supplant gasoline in terms of energy density.

These reasons are part of the equation into why hydrogen cars don't work all that well. Like everyone has already said, H is very explosive. To get the volume down the pressure has to skyrocket. So, you would be then carrying around highly explosive 5,000psi tanks at 70mph. So people say, "well the new tanks don't throw shrapnal." Great! One problem. The hydrogen is still explosive. Its a big bang if leaking hydrogen gets anywhere near a spark.

To make enough hydrogen that would actually increase efficiency in a standard ICE, you would need to fill your entire trunk with water, and have 10 of these things running. Extra weight = loss in mpg, plus the alternator is working overtime, which causes a parasidic loss to the motor. Either way, there is no free lunch, and please avoid these things.

If someone were smart, they'd file a class action lawsuit against these companies and actually provide technical information to show that these are fraudulent products and do not provide what is advertised.

Car companies are out to sell cars, not keep the oil industry alive. If they were so far into the oil industry, you'd think they would have scaled back production of the big trucks 5 years ago, so they wouldn't be in the financial ****cake they are in right now. I'm just glad I still have my job.

 

one more thing for those that still don't believe Central Florida Progress Energy have a few of their cars running on hydrogen http://www.progress-energy.com/envir...s/focusfcv.asp

 

What????!!!!. I only cary 2L of water in my smack booster. and I get 17% increase in efficiency, not bad for me. Have you ever built an HHO booster and got it to work before?


Sounds like you are smarter than us, what are you waiting for?

 

Oh by the way, NASA Space shuttles only carry 1 cylinder of hydrogen under its belly to lift to space, and tossed it off to the ocean for refilling again, goodbye hydrogen from earth, because there's plenty more hydrogen in space, they only need to bring oxygen to burn the mixture.

Duh?!

 

This is a totally different technology. These Focuses (and so are the space shuttles) are running on externally generated hydrogen; while people here are trying to generate hydrogen internally and expect performance/MPG gains.

Unless you measure it on a dyno, 17% doesn’t prove anything. Even a slightly different driving style can lead to such a difference.

Would you support it with a link to NASA/another respectable source, or it’s just yet another baseless crap?

 

You dont know that NASA space shuttle use electrolysis in space? They even use it to generate drinking water.

They have hydrogen fuel cell on-board!!!

You are the 4th person who asked me to do a dyno, but let me see if you'll go with me for a dyno test, and lets make a bet, for $500, just for fun. where are you at? How about if we meet with some witness. Whoever losses also pays the dyno, and a big letter L on the forehead infront of the camera.

Are you in?

I tell you, this will be fun.

Baseless crap? can't find the answers again in your textbooks and having a hard time using google? Watch discovery science channel dude. And stop this bookish thing. We dont need to spoon feed you again here.

 

Electrolysis is the process of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen – the opposite of generating water by oxidizing (burning) hydrogen. Ignorance is endless.

Be my guest. I’m in Eastern Ontario.

Reading the textbooks and googling leads to the same conclusion: space shuttles carry all their hydrogen from Earth.

 

danmaz...seriously whats your purpose with this? You can argue all you want but why? Is your end goal to get everyone doing this to stop? The people here working on this project really dont care what you think. And now you are getting off topic with other arguments.

If you really want to prove us wrong, make your own HHO generator, put it on your car, and then show us it doesnt work. Otherwise you just look like a pathetic cry baby begging for attention. If you have no positive input to this thread, please leave so that the people using this thread for information dont have to read your crap.

My last point to you is, many other people have gotten this to work on their cars, and your textbook explanations for whatever dont mean jack. From your arguments I dont think you really understand how an engine works and why hydrogen improves it. I repeat, if you really deeply care about proving us wrong, do it with real results, not just with some crap you googled or saw on tv.

 

Hey bookworm, I'm in buffallo, NY. You are close.

Close your books, and get it ready for the winter. You can throw it in your fireplace later.

If you really want to prove me wrong, come down here, and pick your own dyno shop, and bring all your meters and study how to use them first, because you are not gonna use mine. And we will post the results here, and to the hho forums around, together with the photo we agreed upon.

Shut up, close your mouth if you dont have any inputs. Why are you sticking around here anyways if you hate this technology so much? why are you here for? You did look an idiot before, and we already read your ignorance in the previous posts several times.

 

Hey Foglght,
can I ask where you at? I invite you to come and join us to do dyno.
Are you in?

 

People who are pessimistic doesn't make good progress since they are filled with negativity, their brain is locked. That's why he's still stucked with his old stuff and pulling us all down.

Do you think he can build an efficient HHO generator?, he'd rather stay in the library.

Let's move on...

 

I’m sure my posts here made good to many readers that will think twice before following advices from people who think electrolysis generates water and there’s enough hydrogen in the space to run a space shuttle. The readers understand they cannot trust with hydrogen technology someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
This is going to be my last post in this topic. SolarWind is still invited to Canada for a dyno test. I’m making too much money from my knowledge and patents to waste time driving to Buffalo.

 

ROFL! what kind of credentials do you even have? Do your patents have anything to even do with this subject? Who the hell do you even think you are?

 

This thread makes my head hurt. Stop acting like children...

 

Now you curled your ***** under your neck. You want proof?, come down here yourself, we are not that far from each other, why would I come to you, I gave you a chance to prove my claim. Now do your part.

I'll give you a chance, let's meet halfway!, as i would really love to put a big L on your forehead!... I'm ready anytime!.

Yeah?.. You are such a comic. You cant even replace an in-tranny cooler. And everybody was spoon feeding you. You are a confused individual. I've read some of your posts. And you want to flush transmission fluid? Try considering flushing your brain first!

Yeah, I know, your Quest '07 is pretty much uselss as what you claimed because you cant fix it. Obviously, you don't know how to make an efficent electrolyzer.

Patent my *$$. keep your brain fart to yourself.

 

It's fine to get repeatable numbers of increased efficiency. I'm glad you did. Now proving that it was a direct result of you installing a HHO kit would be basically impossible.

Please figure out how to do the math on how much energy is contained in 2L of water. Then figure out how much actual hydrogen is being used in the tank or two of gas that it supposedly lasts. That alone would tell you it doesn't work.

Now figure out what it would really take on a P-V or T-S chart to get a 17% increase in efficiency.

So, now we should think about what extra hydrogen would do for a combustion process. Cleaner burn right? Yes, it is. however, mixing hydrogen with gasoline produces two different autoignition temperatures, which normally causes pre-detonation and the computer rolls back timing. We all know what happens when cars roll back timing.

Hey, if I paid $500 or so for a kit like this, I'd probably be attempting to defend it myself. Although, buying that kit would be going against everything that I've been taught and experienced.

I live in Detroit, and have no interest in driving out to Buffalo or anywhere to see a dyno test that I know the results to before it even happens.

 

+1
Flame each other over PM or take it to OT. If you want this thread to remain open, then stay on topic.

 

who paid $500 for a kit? I made my own for ALOT less.

How about instead of telling us to look up a pressure-volume chart or a temp-entropy chart why dont you use one to prove us wrong. Post the charts and show us on them how it is physically impossible to get mpg gains.

 

agreed. foglght and danmaz, can you please leave this thread for those who want to experiment with the idea. You 2 have caused the last 3 pages or so to be nothing but arguing. If you want, feel free to make your own thread that is solely on the topic of why this wont work, but this thread is not for that.

 

Yeah, Whatever. You guys always comes with an excuse everytime.

I drive a 1968 Mustang Coupe from my old man, Yes it's old, and it is a gas hog, any mileage gain is surely noticeable.

You people always comes up with your own little explanation. Stop all this theories! I am sick and tired of it. I always tell my naysayers to shutup and lets go to a dyno shop, but only one agreed (because he has a shop). And next after that, I do make a bet!.

You want to prove me wrong?.. Let's go!
Pick your dyno shop anywhere, bring all your own testers, even your ghost detectors, and even a camera crew. And study all your lessons. And prove me wrong after the dyno results.

It's like telling the bumble bee can't fly, because in theory, it can't... You guys always believe in your textbooks and theories. Dude, bubble bee can fly!

 

SolarWind-

You are on notice- tone it down or you and the other username who shares your IP will be on the ban train.

 

Hey, im cool.
hmmn... I think I'll take my next door neighbhor with me, he's a *****, and he's here too. Just kidding.

Keep it cool.

 

No big deal, just watch the personal insults.

I don't understand any of the science being debated here, but I do want respectful discussions.

That goes for everyone- don't go calling someone out and not expect them to fire back to some extent.

 

Thanks, Who ever you are.

Can't understand why others even repond to the carbage.

Get back on track, and lets see some real talk.

 

i'm back, sorry it took me awhile to keep you guys posted, been busy lately.

I dont really care about what the naysayers says, they just keep attacking our hobbies with the same theories been discussed thousand times already, it'll surely drain you sometimes. I was once a hho naysayers , but unlike them, I do entertain possibility, and go out and try to find answers.

Wether we gain mileage or not, we love what we do and that's why we make progress, you learn something new about this technology everyday, and new friends (and unfortunately, enemies sometimes!).

We just can't live on pure theories... Yeah, especially the bumble bee theory. if this naysayers heared or looked at fire storm spark plugs, they'll probably wont believe and going to hate it too. Because what it does is very similar to hho, only that it is more efficient. Well, why it didn't got mass produced?, you know why.

And Yes, we are not generating energy from mystery. If only that gasoline burns at 100% efficiency, then there's nothing left to burn, we wont get additional mileage, and we dont need a catalyctic converter.

HHO may not work on all cars, we know that, since very car is different, they all react differently, and they may need adjustments and tuning, you have to find the right combination. No doubt that this works on Mustang 68, Obviously its a carburator, it can probably do more.

On my Altima, if I cruise at 60 - 75mph, and ran my electrolyzer between 8-10amps, I get mileage gain. above or below that speed, NADA!... and I start to notice it after 4 days of driving, and almost forgot that I have an hho under the hood, the ECU has gone through relearning process and probably found the right mix. If I will take the hho out for atleast an hour driving, i'm back to zero again and have to run my car for few hours or maybe days again to teach the ECU. No, I didn't change my driving habit, my wife actually drives this car too.

Why 8-10amps?
Because that's the current I can pull without the engine feeling the drag on the alternator(this was also brought up on the hho forums), and this is probably the point where the hho starts to work on my engine, run it greater than 11amps, mileage gain will slowly drift away, run it at 20amps, i'll start taxing my mileage. More HHO doesn't always mean mileage gain, atleast for my car.

The 8-10amps is for my car, yours is probably different and you have to find it. How, run your engine without hho, and listen to the engine pitch (or rpm), and take note of it.

Then, power up your hho unit but dont feed the hho gas to the intake yet. Listen if the engine pitch/rpm went down, that means, there's drag from the alternator (no, the engine is not running smooth), and the ECU will supplement it with gas since it'll try to keep the idle rpm to normal, you have to trim down the amps (by reducing electrolyte concentration), and repeat the same process again, until you find the right amps that your engine wont notice it. It will be easy if you have a PWM to control current pull, and a scanguage to check rpm, which I do have.

Always check your generator efficiency, my rule is, if the efficiency is lower than 4mmw (mililiters per minute/watt), it's going back to the drawing board. Ain't worth using as a booster. Well, atleast for me.
I do target 5mmw and above if all possible.

Remember, there is too much current leaks in an open bath systems, isolated series cell is way much better.

And Hexon, Here's the preview of the plates, the one shown here are 304 switch face plates, I actually use flat 316L SS plates , but doesn't matter, I prefer this photo as it is more appealing and looks simple to newbies.

It's 2 parallel of 5 series cell, partially isolated to cut current leaks, only 2 cells sharing baths then stepped gap to reduce current leaks, this design can still be improve, improved version is now on prototype, I made it this way so it'll be easier to make for beginners.

I think the only thing that's hard here is making the acrylic, it takes time... unless you have a CNC machine.

N = neutral plate
+ = positive electrode plate
- = negative electrode plate
G = Hexnut Gap
| = divider/isolator

+NGNN | NNGNN | N-G-N | NNGNN | NNGN+





Altima MPG:

 

Dude!!!! This cell is Absolutely, Spankingly, Orgasmically AWESOME!!!!.

Can you make me one of this with 316L ?

 

This pictures proves nothing. All you did is reset the mpg meter while cruising. I can do that too. If you were smart, you would have reset it on a long down hill slope. I can get 40+ out of my alti!!!


This whole thread is BS. I predict that in a few months these jokers will be offering their kits for sale.

 

BTW, it's funny how you HHO zealots cherry pick your facts. Much in the same way as creationists, and G dubbyas wmd in Iraq "proof"

 

Oh, one more thing. If Big Oil, and Detroit are suppressing this "technology", and this technology is superior, why is this "technology" not present in other parts of the world where Big Oil, and Detroit have no power. I.E China, Brazil, India, Russia, etc, etc, etc.


Oh, I can't wait for your little conspiracy theory on this.