HHO gas... i know i know, hear me out.
HHO gas... i know i know, hear me out.
Not being one to believe everything i read on the internet, ive decided the best idea is to test it. My truck is possibly the ideal cantidate, being ex military it has the 24v wiring with two alternators, and two batteries under the hood. the truck only uses the 2nd battery and alternator to spin the starter and run military equipment that is no longer present on the truck. so basically the second alternator is being spun but not really doing anything. But, i also dont want to go putting time and energy into building the setup for the truck... only to find out its a snake oil deal.
In sitting on my back porch and looking around... i may have solved my delemma. Up to this point all the HHO vids ive seen have been super controlled experiments of a generator hooked up to a battery charger or power source, and making bubbles in water. Not really representative of use in an automotive situation. I however, have a B&S lawn mower engine, automotive alternator, spare car battery, and the odds and ends, to make a setup very representative of an automotive application.
The plan is to build a test stand, with the alternator hooked to the engine with a belt and pully, with the alternator hooked to the battery, and ideally some sort of load on the system to represent the natural load of the electrical equipment of a car. maybe some car headlights, or KC lights or something. I would replace the factory gas tank with a graduated cylinder, so that a measured amount of fuel would be used each time the engine was run. After establishing a baseline of the engines fuel consumption measured in (most likely) cc's/minute, at a given rpm (i have a timing light with a tachometer feature), i would wire up a HHO generator. Most likely a modular setup, giving me the ability to measure different gas flow rates and their effect on the engines fuel consumption. keeping operating rpm, and electrical load, as the constants.
pretty much i want to do very controlled, empirical experimentation to either prove, or disprove, the concept that the faster flame front propagation of the HHO gas will cause a more complete combustion of the long chain hydrocarbon AF ratio, and therefore lower the fuel consumption rates. I would not be looking to "run an engine on water" but rather explore the possibility of using waisted electrical energy to produce just enough HHO gas to optimize the combustion of the air fuel ratio being delivered to the engine for optimum efficiency, almost along the lines of a catalyst.
its also a great excuse to make an HHO generator to use for fueling my newest potato cannon, which is having a hard time using liquid or vapor fuel due to an excessively large combustion chamber :twisted:
i welcome any thoughts and suggestions.
Has anyone tried running any HHO gas yet to see if the claims pan out? Ive been doing alot of looking into it, and i have to admit, the websites for this stuff are pretty much always so cheesy and hokey that theres almost no way to take them seriously. However, i have noticed a rather large increase in the number of people posting vids and results claiming their mileage has increased, and pointing out that every system is different and requires considerable trial and error to find the right volume of gas for the best results.
Not being one to believe everything i read on the internet, ive decided the best idea is to test it. My truck is possibly the ideal cantidate, being ex military it has the 24v wiring with two alternators, and two batteries under the hood. the truck only uses the 2nd battery and alternator to spin the starter and run military equipment that is no longer present on the truck. so basically the second alternator is being spun but not really doing anything. But, i also dont want to go putting time and energy into building the setup for the truck... only to find out its a snake oil deal.
In sitting on my back porch and looking around... i may have solved my delemma. Up to this point all the HHO vids ive seen have been super controlled experiments of a generator hooked up to a battery charger or power source, and making bubbles in water. Not really representative of use in an automotive situation. I however, have a B&S lawn mower engine, automotive alternator, spare car battery, and the odds and ends, to make a setup very representative of an automotive application.
The plan is to build a test stand, with the alternator hooked to the engine with a belt and pully, with the alternator hooked to the battery, and ideally some sort of load on the system to represent the natural load of the electrical equipment of a car. maybe some car headlights, or KC lights or something. I would replace the factory gas tank with a graduated cylinder, so that a measured amount of fuel would be used each time the engine was run. After establishing a baseline of the engines fuel consumption measured in (most likely) cc's/minute, at a given rpm (i have a timing light with a tachometer feature), i would wire up a HHO generator. Most likely a modular setup, giving me the ability to measure different gas flow rates and their effect on the engines fuel consumption. keeping operating rpm, and electrical load, as the constants.
pretty much i want to do very controlled, empirical experimentation to either prove, or disprove, the concept that the faster flame front propagation of the HHO gas will cause a more complete combustion of the long chain hydrocarbon AF ratio, and therefore lower the fuel consumption rates. I would not be looking to "run an engine on water" but rather explore the possibility of using waisted electrical energy to produce just enough HHO gas to optimize the combustion of the air fuel ratio being delivered to the engine for optimum efficiency, almost along the lines of a catalyst.
its also a great excuse to make an HHO generator to use for fueling my newest potato cannon, which is having a hard time using liquid or vapor fuel due to an excessively large combustion chamber :twisted:
i welcome any thoughts and suggestions.
I did waste my time on it with my personal car and it made 0.1% difference in my mileage. Well within the random variable range.
ForcedInduction
08-07-2008, 08:00 AM
#2
It does not work, plain and simple. Don't even waste your time.
I did waste my time on it with my personal car and it made 0.1% difference in my mileage. Well within the random variable range.
ForcedInduction It does not work, plain and simple. Don't even waste your time.What about making it at the house, and then injecting as one would with propane.
I did waste my time on it with my personal car and it made 0.1% difference in my mileage. Well within the random variable range.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
ForcedInduction It does not work, plain and simple. Don't even waste your time.What about making it at the house, and then injecting as one would with propane.
I did waste my time on it with my personal car and it made 0.1% difference in my mileage. Well within the random variable range.
1987 300D Sturmmachine
1991 300D Nearly Perfect
1985 300D Weekend/Camping/Dog car
1974 L508D Motoroam Monarch "NightMare"
OBK #42
as for it being a waist of time, the advice is appriciated but ive got alot of spare time, and this is a more productive use of it than say... sitting on the couch watching infomercials
i consider it play time and like i said, ill be working with an old salvaged lawn mower engine, and not building a setup for the truck unless there is strong evidence that it would be worth it. which it seems based on your experience wont happen, so i dont have to worry about waisting any time
compressing it in some sort of storage tank is an interesting idea, im not really sure. I guess it would depend entirely on weather the gas has any benifit when its not using engine power to be produced. i suppose its possible that if there was an energy increase from burning the hho it could have been offset by the load used to produce it, effectively canceling each other out. however its also possible that the gas simply has very little to no effect on the combustion event as forcedinduction has stated. I wont be able to test the idea of storing the gas, because i simply dont have the ability to compress the gas.
as for it being a waist of time, the advice is appriciated but ive got alot of spare time, and this is a more productive use of it than say... sitting on the couch watching infomercials i consider it play time and like i said, ill be working with an old salvaged lawn mower engine, and not building a setup for the truck unless there is strong evidence that it would be worth it. which it seems based on your experience wont happen, so i dont have to worry about waisting any time
ForcedInduction
08-09-2008, 05:19 AM
#5
Storing it is dangerous because the gas is unstable. It needs to be produced and consumed on demand.
They make Oxyhydrogen (AKA Brown's Gas), which is two Hydrogen and two Oxygen atoms in an unstable non-joined bond.
Because the energy required to split water exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency.
ForcedInduction
10-07-2008, 07:58 PM
#6
Here is the best fact about hydrogen "generators". They don't work!
They make Oxyhydrogen (AKA Brown's Gas), which is two Hydrogen and two Oxygen atoms in an unstable non-joined bond.
Because the energy required to split water exceeds the energy recouped by burning it, these devices reduce, rather than improve fuel efficiency.
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
08-11-2009, 04:36 PM #7The only hydrogen kit I have seen that looks promising is sold by this company but it looks expensive and as u make your own hydrogen there is no road tax witch makes it illegal! Not that I care! It's only for gas cars to run 100% hydrogen there storage system is the only safe way I have seen to store it http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
![[Image: image006sm.jpg]](http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/image006sm.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
Hydrogen is a very weak energy source when used for combustion. The BMW gets 16.9mpg on g@s but only 4.7mpg of liquid hydrogen (which is far more dense than compressed gas hydrogen).
It uses a 30 gallon liquid hydrogen tank cooled to −423.4 °F that can hold 75% more hydrogen in the same volume of space as a 10,000psi compressed hydrogen tank. Granted its got a 6.0L V12, but that 30 gallon tank is only enough get a 125 mile range, 32 miles if it were compressed gas.
Notice their site never says at what pressure the hydrogen is stored at or how many cubic feet its capable of storing. If BMW's 30 gallon tank could only get 32 miles on compressed gas at 10,000psi, those tiny little tanks won't even deliver a fraction of the range.
Notice "United Nuclear's" description of their Corvette states:
Quote:The fuel system remains in "Hydrogen" mode until the tank pressure begins to drop. If the tanks run out of Hydrogen, the engine will seamlessly switch over to g@soline, which enables the car to run conventionally until the Hydrogen tanks are refilled.Then..
Quote:Driving range with these tanks is just a little over 350 miles and still leaves some usable luggage/trunk room.
Notice that nowhere on the site do they tell you range or efficiency on hydrogen alone, its always in combination with g@soline operation.
A 1994 Corvette has a 20 gallon g@s tank and averages 18mpg, thats a 360 mile driving range on g@soline alone.
Mercedes has been doing their own hydrogen R&D for decades. Their pictures give away quite a bit of detail about the scale of what it takes to run a car on pure compressed hydrogen gas.
See the large natural gas tanks in the background, their source for the hydrogen.
MB is using far more than 4 low pressure tanks to fuel their hydrogen cars!
Long story short, "United Nuclear" is just another scam, no better than somebody selling a PVC tube with electrodes on eBay for $150.
ForcedInduction
08-11-2009, 06:20 PM
#8
That thing is a total joke and a scam. It will take a LOT more than a few tiny little bottles to run an engine on pure hydrogen!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Hydrogen_7
Hydrogen is a very weak energy source when used for combustion. The BMW gets 16.9mpg on g@s but only 4.7mpg of liquid hydrogen (which is far more dense than compressed gas hydrogen).
It uses a 30 gallon liquid hydrogen tank cooled to −423.4 °F that can hold 75% more hydrogen in the same volume of space as a 10,000psi compressed hydrogen tank. Granted its got a 6.0L V12, but that 30 gallon tank is only enough get a 125 mile range, 32 miles if it were compressed gas.
Notice their site never says at what pressure the hydrogen is stored at or how many cubic feet its capable of storing. If BMW's 30 gallon tank could only get 32 miles on compressed gas at 10,000psi, those tiny little tanks won't even deliver a fraction of the range.
Notice "United Nuclear's" description of their Corvette states:
Quote:The fuel system remains in "Hydrogen" mode until the tank pressure begins to drop. If the tanks run out of Hydrogen, the engine will seamlessly switch over to g@soline, which enables the car to run conventionally until the Hydrogen tanks are refilled.Then..
Quote:Driving range with these tanks is just a little over 350 miles and still leaves some usable luggage/trunk room.
Notice that nowhere on the site do they tell you range or efficiency on hydrogen alone, its always in combination with g@soline operation.
A 1994 Corvette has a 20 gallon g@s tank and averages 18mpg, thats a 360 mile driving range on g@soline alone.
Mercedes has been doing their own hydrogen R&D for decades. Their pictures give away quite a bit of detail about the scale of what it takes to run a car on pure compressed hydrogen gas.
See the large natural gas tanks in the background, their source for the hydrogen.
MB is using far more than 4 low pressure tanks to fuel their hydrogen cars!
Long story short, "United Nuclear" is just another scam, no better than somebody selling a PVC tube with electrodes on eBay for $150.
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
08-13-2009, 09:01 PM #9Good catch I didn't catch that bit about it switching back to gasoline! If it sound to good to be true!
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
The HHO generator was my first try at this and yes I did a lot of research into it so I learned some of the things not to do.
First of all, as this is a performance forum let me start there. The diesel used for the test is my wife's 1988 Chevy P30 Step van 6.2L n/a diesel with no other engine mods, in fact the only thing that I have done to this is add all of the dog grooming equipment to make it a mobile grooming shop (about 800 to 1000 lbs.).
On I15 in Lake Elsinore, Calif. North bound there is a hill that before the HHO generator was added would drag the van down from 60+ mph down to about 45-48 mph by the time it got to the top, this was consistent (as my wife reminded me every time she drove that direction). After adding the HHO starting at 55 mph it will now maintain 55 for the entire hill. Again no other changes.
Next, it stopped smoking. One of the things that I have read on HHO is that it is supposed to help burn all of the fuel that is in the combustion chamber. True or not, I have seen a tremendous decrease in smoke from this engine.
As for mileage I don't know that I can get a good baseline and accurate numbers based on the way she drives and where she drives. This test will have to wait until I add one to the Mercedes. In fact I was not even looking at better mileage in her van, it is as aerodynamic as a brick barn and almost as heavy. My goal for her van was to stop the smoke, and see what it would do.
I know there are a lot of opinions on this subject, I don't want to take away from the quality of information on this forum but as I did see a performance increase I thought some would like to know.
Budget_Builder
10-20-2009, 11:41 PM #10I don't know about anyone else, but I have tried HHO and I have had some interesting results. Lets forget about mileage to start, if you get better mileage great, if not there are some other things to think about on using this.
The HHO generator was my first try at this and yes I did a lot of research into it so I learned some of the things not to do.
First of all, as this is a performance forum let me start there. The diesel used for the test is my wife's 1988 Chevy P30 Step van 6.2L n/a diesel with no other engine mods, in fact the only thing that I have done to this is add all of the dog grooming equipment to make it a mobile grooming shop (about 800 to 1000 lbs.).
On I15 in Lake Elsinore, Calif. North bound there is a hill that before the HHO generator was added would drag the van down from 60+ mph down to about 45-48 mph by the time it got to the top, this was consistent (as my wife reminded me every time she drove that direction). After adding the HHO starting at 55 mph it will now maintain 55 for the entire hill. Again no other changes.
Next, it stopped smoking. One of the things that I have read on HHO is that it is supposed to help burn all of the fuel that is in the combustion chamber. True or not, I have seen a tremendous decrease in smoke from this engine.
As for mileage I don't know that I can get a good baseline and accurate numbers based on the way she drives and where she drives. This test will have to wait until I add one to the Mercedes. In fact I was not even looking at better mileage in her van, it is as aerodynamic as a brick barn and almost as heavy. My goal for her van was to stop the smoke, and see what it would do.
I know there are a lot of opinions on this subject, I don't want to take away from the quality of information on this forum but as I did see a performance increase I thought some would like to know.
How
Start the engine.
Start HHO production. The engine RPMs should race out of control from the additional fuel (or go very rich in a g@sser).
Shut off the engine's fuel supply. If HHO actually works, at the absolute least it will produce enough hydrogen to keep the engine running.
Not a single person has done it.
ForcedInduction
10-20-2009, 11:59 PM
#11
Claims that HHO works in an engine are very easy to disprove.
How
Start the engine.
Start HHO production. The engine RPMs should race out of control from the additional fuel (or go very rich in a g@sser).
Shut off the engine's fuel supply. If HHO actually works, at the absolute least it will produce enough hydrogen to keep the engine running.
Not a single person has done it.
That being said, is there any reason why the adding of hydrogen and oxygen cannot improve the burn of the fuel that is provided, in this case diesel. What I am seeing is the added power to climb a hill and less smoke.
Like I said I am just reporting what I have seen in my own test.
Budget_Builder
10-21-2009, 12:28 AM #12I agree with ForcedInduction in that the idea of running only on HHO is never going to work. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.
That being said, is there any reason why the adding of hydrogen and oxygen cannot improve the burn of the fuel that is provided, in this case diesel. What I am seeing is the added power to climb a hill and less smoke.
Like I said I am just reporting what I have seen in my own test.
(10-21-2009, 12:28 AM)Budget_Builder That being said, is there any reason why the adding of hydrogen and oxygen cannot improve the burn of the fuel that is provided, in this case diesel.
There is nothing for it to aid. Hydrogen is simply an additional fuel and oxygen is just oxygen.
HHO is also extremely unstable, thats why it can't be stored. By the time its in the combustion chamber most of what is produced has recombined back to water.
ForcedInduction
10-21-2009, 12:40 AM
#13
(10-21-2009, 12:28 AM)Budget_Builder That being said, is there any reason why the adding of hydrogen and oxygen cannot improve the burn of the fuel that is provided, in this case diesel.
There is nothing for it to aid. Hydrogen is simply an additional fuel and oxygen is just oxygen.
HHO is also extremely unstable, thats why it can't be stored. By the time its in the combustion chamber most of what is produced has recombined back to water.
(10-21-2009, 12:40 AM)ForcedInduction HHO is also extremely unstable, thats why it can't be stored. By the time its in the combustion chamber most of what is produced has recombined back to water.
That's not possible.
The problem is, the gas which most of these turkeys are producing is just steam. Steam recondenses back to water.
If you do succeed in splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen there is no bond between them. It's H2 and O2, for them to recombine to water requires enough energy to rip the existing H-H and O-O bonds apart so they recombine. This is known as "activation energy" and is commonly produced by a flame or spark.
H2 and O2 do not react together at room temperature. Not ever.
Brown was a fraud, the gas he claims his devices produce does not exist. You're better of farting into your intake.
(10-21-2009, 12:40 AM)ForcedInduction HHO is also extremely unstable, thats why it can't be stored. By the time its in the combustion chamber most of what is produced has recombined back to water.
That's not possible.
The problem is, the gas which most of these turkeys are producing is just steam. Steam recondenses back to water.
If you do succeed in splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen there is no bond between them. It's H2 and O2, for them to recombine to water requires enough energy to rip the existing H-H and O-O bonds apart so they recombine. This is known as "activation energy" and is commonly produced by a flame or spark.
H2 and O2 do not react together at room temperature. Not ever.
Brown was a fraud, the gas he claims his devices produce does not exist. You're better of farting into your intake.
The engine naturally takes in 1.5L of air every revolution. Thats 975L of air per minute AT IDLE.
On the highway its consuming 4,927Liters/Min at 6psi and 3000rpm.
That means the actual air/fuel ratio for the average "generator's" 2L/minute "hydrogen" production is a 2,463.5:1 air fuel ratio!
Thats the equivalent A/F ratio of a person ripping a gnarly fart in an ice hockey rink.
Even if we amp up the production by ten times to 20L/minute (a "generator" large enough to occupy most of your trunk, weigh hundreds of pounds and consume hundreds of amps), that still a 246:1 A/F ratio. The Diesel fuel ratio goes as low as 80:1 at idle. That means even a "super generator" wouldn't produce enough gas at maximum output just to idle the engine.
Quote:BlackDogSociety
In 1977 NASA showed a significant increase in flame speed with a modest amount of H2 added to the fuel. This increase in FS was used to extend the lean burn range of the fuel which improved performance and reduced emissions. So how much is a modest amount? They used 0.51 lb/hr which translates to .004 LPM from a on-board methanol reformer. Look it up you'll see this is correct.
How was this hydrogen produced? By the engine or an external source prior to the test and stored in a tank? Did they use a 100mpg carburetor too?
If it worked so well, why 33 years later doesn't every car have a $15 jar of water with metal plates in it to significantly increase economy and reduce emissions?
A conspiracy by "Big Oil"? Some billionaire bought the patent and is sitting on it? Automakers can't rely on drivers to keep it filled or maintained? Too hard for a multi-billion dollar business with hundreds of engineers to R&D a jar of water?
ForcedInduction
12-30-2009, 12:28 PM
#15
(from a youtube reply war)
The engine naturally takes in 1.5L of air every revolution. Thats 975L of air per minute AT IDLE.
On the highway its consuming 4,927Liters/Min at 6psi and 3000rpm.
That means the actual air/fuel ratio for the average "generator's" 2L/minute "hydrogen" production is a 2,463.5:1 air fuel ratio!
Thats the equivalent A/F ratio of a person ripping a gnarly fart in an ice hockey rink.
Even if we amp up the production by ten times to 20L/minute (a "generator" large enough to occupy most of your trunk, weigh hundreds of pounds and consume hundreds of amps), that still a 246:1 A/F ratio. The Diesel fuel ratio goes as low as 80:1 at idle. That means even a "super generator" wouldn't produce enough gas at maximum output just to idle the engine.
Quote:BlackDogSociety
In 1977 NASA showed a significant increase in flame speed with a modest amount of H2 added to the fuel. This increase in FS was used to extend the lean burn range of the fuel which improved performance and reduced emissions. So how much is a modest amount? They used 0.51 lb/hr which translates to .004 LPM from a on-board methanol reformer. Look it up you'll see this is correct.
How was this hydrogen produced? By the engine or an external source prior to the test and stored in a tank? Did they use a 100mpg carburetor too?
If it worked so well, why 33 years later doesn't every car have a $15 jar of water with metal plates in it to significantly increase economy and reduce emissions?
A conspiracy by "Big Oil"? Some billionaire bought the patent and is sitting on it? Automakers can't rely on drivers to keep it filled or maintained? Too hard for a multi-billion dollar business with hundreds of engineers to R&D a jar of water?
In my reading about experiments related to this subject I have found some things that make me believe it is possible: 1. Hydrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen. 2. A small amount of hydrogen affects the burn rate in a way that increases efficiency. 3. The energy used to separate enough hydrogen to recreate that effect is less than the energy gained from the increased efficiency.
So what's the big problem then? Doesn't look like anyone has figured out how to make it all come together yet. I sure hope somebody does before I get around to trying, that could be a while.
It probably requires solid adamantium parts that have been assembled by a mainstream politician that understands and obeys the constitution.
ForcedInduction, why do you even post in the Alt section? All you do is hate.
Give it a shot BigGriz! Don't let the haters get you down. Truly, I have yet to see anyone make it work, but all that tells me is that nobody smart enough has tried it.
In my reading about experiments related to this subject I have found some things that make me believe it is possible: 1. Hydrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen. 2. A small amount of hydrogen affects the burn rate in a way that increases efficiency. 3. The energy used to separate enough hydrogen to recreate that effect is less than the energy gained from the increased efficiency.
So what's the big problem then? Doesn't look like anyone has figured out how to make it all come together yet. I sure hope somebody does before I get around to trying, that could be a while.
It probably requires solid adamantium parts that have been assembled by a mainstream politician that understands and obeys the constitution.
ForcedInduction, why do you even post in the Alt section? All you do is hate.
(01-16-2010, 05:13 PM)GreenMan Give it a shot BigGriz! Don't let the haters get you down. Truly, I have yet to see anyone make it work, but all that tells me is that nobody smart enough has tried it.
No-one has been able to reverse gravity either. I"m still waiting for someone smart enough to do that.
(01-16-2010, 05:13 PM)GreenMan In my reading about experiments related to this subject I have found some things that make me believe it is possible: 1. Hydrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen. 2. A small amount of hydrogen affects the burn rate in a way that increases efficiency. 3. The energy used to separate enough hydrogen to recreate that effect is less than the energy gained from the increased efficiency.
#3 is your problem and where the impossibilities lie.
The energy used to split the hydrogen is far greater than you get back from burning it. Any accelerant effect it has on combustion still doesn't make up for that.
How many years has this myth perpetuated with no-one yet able to provide verified results?
HHO as a chemical structure does not exist. Water and steam is HOH. There is no fuel in water, those who claim there is are lacking some fundamental knowledge of chemistry and combustion.
(01-16-2010, 05:13 PM)GreenMan Give it a shot BigGriz! Don't let the haters get you down. Truly, I have yet to see anyone make it work, but all that tells me is that nobody smart enough has tried it.
No-one has been able to reverse gravity either. I"m still waiting for someone smart enough to do that.
(01-16-2010, 05:13 PM)GreenMan In my reading about experiments related to this subject I have found some things that make me believe it is possible: 1. Hydrolysis produces hydrogen and oxygen. 2. A small amount of hydrogen affects the burn rate in a way that increases efficiency. 3. The energy used to separate enough hydrogen to recreate that effect is less than the energy gained from the increased efficiency.
#3 is your problem and where the impossibilities lie.
The energy used to split the hydrogen is far greater than you get back from burning it. Any accelerant effect it has on combustion still doesn't make up for that.
How many years has this myth perpetuated with no-one yet able to provide verified results?
HHO as a chemical structure does not exist. Water and steam is HOH. There is no fuel in water, those who claim there is are lacking some fundamental knowledge of chemistry and combustion.
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
willbhere4u
01-16-2010, 08:16 PM #18The only thing it does is combine back in to water witch works as an internal engine cleaner! but water injection will do the exact same! Water turn's to steam in a hot engine and keeps it clean of carbon but I would not recommend constant use of this
1987 300SDL 6spd manual om606.962 swap project
1985 300td euro 5spd wagon running
AND I THINK IT DOES BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK OF IT AS A SECONDARY FUEL SUPPLY TO HELP BURN OUR GAS AND DIESEL BETTER
BECAUSE IT DOES HELP THE EFFICIENCY OF THIS PROCESS WHICH WILL ADD TO POWER AND MILEAGE.
I HAVE INSTALLED A UNIT ON MY 1995 TOYOTA 4RUNNER AND CAN TELL YOU THAT IT HAS A LITTLE MORE NOTICEABLE POWER AND ATLEAST 1 EXTRA MPG RUNNING 33X12.5 TIRES I WAS GETTING 10.5 MPG AND NOW GET RIGHT AT 12 MPG JUST SINCE JANUARY 04 10.
I HAVE A SHEETMETAL SHOP AND A LASER TO CUT PLATES FOR A CUSTOMER THAT NEEDED THE HHO PLATES CUT FOR HIS HHO GENERATOR THAT HE SOLD MANY MANY KITS OF.
HIS KIT WILL PRODUCE 3 LITERS PER MIN AT 10 AMPS OF 12 VOLTS OF POWER.
SOMETIMES WITH NEWER MODEL ENGINES YOU WILL NEED TO TWEAK THE MASS AIR FLOW SENSOR AND O2 SENSOR AND THAT WILL KEEP THE COMUTER FROM SENDING TOO MUCH FUEL AN LEANING OUT THE THE ENGINE THUS RESULTING IN POOR MPGS.
AND IT IS NOT HUGE OR HEAVY NOR IS IT DRAINING YOUR ALT. OR BATTERY.
THIS GUY WILL NOT MAKE ANY CLAMS AS TO GETTING MORE MPG'S OR POWER BUT HE WILL LET HIS CUSTOMERS DO THE REVIEWS.
SO YOU GUY'S SHOULD RESEARCH THIS A LITTLE MORE JUST AS I HAVE
THEN BASH THIS SUBJECT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF BEEN THERE DONE THAT.
I AM ON THIS SITE BECAUSE I AM RESEARCHING THE OLDER MERCEDES DIESELS.
THE REASON FOR THE REASERCH IS I HAVE BOUGHT A 1982 MER. DIESEL THAT I AM TAKING THE MOTOR AND AUTOMATIC TRANS. FROM AND DROPING INTO A 1986 ISUZU DIESEL TROOPER WITH A DIVORCED TRANSFER CASE.
THE MERCEDES HAS 140 THOUSAND MILES AND DOES NOT HAVE TURBO BUT THE ODOMETER DOES WORK SO I THINK THE MILAGE IS CORRECT
THE TROOPER HAS A TURBO AND A 3 INCH BODY LIFT.
I WAS JUST HOPING TO FIND SOMEONE THAT COULD GIVE SOME ADVICE ON WHAT I CAN EXPECT TO RUN INTO.
TROOPER LUVR
01-28-2010, 11:56 PM #19I KNOW HHO SEEMS LIKE IT WILL WORK.
AND I THINK IT DOES BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK OF IT AS A SECONDARY FUEL SUPPLY TO HELP BURN OUR GAS AND DIESEL BETTER
BECAUSE IT DOES HELP THE EFFICIENCY OF THIS PROCESS WHICH WILL ADD TO POWER AND MILEAGE.
I HAVE INSTALLED A UNIT ON MY 1995 TOYOTA 4RUNNER AND CAN TELL YOU THAT IT HAS A LITTLE MORE NOTICEABLE POWER AND ATLEAST 1 EXTRA MPG RUNNING 33X12.5 TIRES I WAS GETTING 10.5 MPG AND NOW GET RIGHT AT 12 MPG JUST SINCE JANUARY 04 10.
I HAVE A SHEETMETAL SHOP AND A LASER TO CUT PLATES FOR A CUSTOMER THAT NEEDED THE HHO PLATES CUT FOR HIS HHO GENERATOR THAT HE SOLD MANY MANY KITS OF.
HIS KIT WILL PRODUCE 3 LITERS PER MIN AT 10 AMPS OF 12 VOLTS OF POWER.
SOMETIMES WITH NEWER MODEL ENGINES YOU WILL NEED TO TWEAK THE MASS AIR FLOW SENSOR AND O2 SENSOR AND THAT WILL KEEP THE COMUTER FROM SENDING TOO MUCH FUEL AN LEANING OUT THE THE ENGINE THUS RESULTING IN POOR MPGS.
AND IT IS NOT HUGE OR HEAVY NOR IS IT DRAINING YOUR ALT. OR BATTERY.
THIS GUY WILL NOT MAKE ANY CLAMS AS TO GETTING MORE MPG'S OR POWER BUT HE WILL LET HIS CUSTOMERS DO THE REVIEWS.
SO YOU GUY'S SHOULD RESEARCH THIS A LITTLE MORE JUST AS I HAVE
THEN BASH THIS SUBJECT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF BEEN THERE DONE THAT.
I AM ON THIS SITE BECAUSE I AM RESEARCHING THE OLDER MERCEDES DIESELS.
THE REASON FOR THE REASERCH IS I HAVE BOUGHT A 1982 MER. DIESEL THAT I AM TAKING THE MOTOR AND AUTOMATIC TRANS. FROM AND DROPING INTO A 1986 ISUZU DIESEL TROOPER WITH A DIVORCED TRANSFER CASE.
THE MERCEDES HAS 140 THOUSAND MILES AND DOES NOT HAVE TURBO BUT THE ODOMETER DOES WORK SO I THINK THE MILAGE IS CORRECT
THE TROOPER HAS A TURBO AND A 3 INCH BODY LIFT.
I WAS JUST HOPING TO FIND SOMEONE THAT COULD GIVE SOME ADVICE ON WHAT I CAN EXPECT TO RUN INTO.
(01-28-2010, 11:56 PM)TROOPER LUVR AND I THINK IT DOES BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK OF IT AS A SECONDARY FUEL SUPPLY TO HELP BURN OUR GAS AND DIESEL BETTERIt doesn't do anything of the sort.
Quote:HIS KIT WILL PRODUCE 3 LITERS PER MIN AT 10 AMPS OF 12 VOLTS OF POWER.Thats not even remotely enough to make a difference, even if the energy output was greater than the energy consumption used during production.
Read post number 15 of this thread.
Quote:SOMETIMES WITH NEWER MODEL ENGINES YOU WILL NEED TO TWEAK THE MASS AIR FLOW SENSOR AND O2 SENSOR AND THAT WILL KEEP THE COMUTER FROM SENDING TOO MUCH FUEL AN LEANING OUT THE THE ENGINE THUS RESULTING IN POOR MPGS.This is why you saw a MPG increase in your 4runner.
Quote:THEN BASH THIS SUBJECT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF BEEN THERE DONE THAT.I have, been there and done that. It doesn't work.
ForcedInduction
01-29-2010, 09:39 AM
#20
(01-28-2010, 11:56 PM)TROOPER LUVR AND I THINK IT DOES BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK OF IT AS A SECONDARY FUEL SUPPLY TO HELP BURN OUR GAS AND DIESEL BETTERIt doesn't do anything of the sort.
Quote:HIS KIT WILL PRODUCE 3 LITERS PER MIN AT 10 AMPS OF 12 VOLTS OF POWER.Thats not even remotely enough to make a difference, even if the energy output was greater than the energy consumption used during production.
Read post number 15 of this thread.
Quote:SOMETIMES WITH NEWER MODEL ENGINES YOU WILL NEED TO TWEAK THE MASS AIR FLOW SENSOR AND O2 SENSOR AND THAT WILL KEEP THE COMUTER FROM SENDING TOO MUCH FUEL AN LEANING OUT THE THE ENGINE THUS RESULTING IN POOR MPGS.This is why you saw a MPG increase in your 4runner.
Quote:THEN BASH THIS SUBJECT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF BEEN THERE DONE THAT.I have, been there and done that. It doesn't work.
(01-28-2010, 11:56 PM)TROOPER LUVR AND I THINK IT DOES BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK OF IT AS A SECONDARY FUEL SUPPLY TO HELP BURN OUR GAS AND DIESEL BETTER
Lol. Yeah everyone, hold hands and believe it works.
GREASY_BEAST
01-30-2010, 12:07 AM #21(01-28-2010, 11:56 PM)TROOPER LUVR AND I THINK IT DOES BUT EVERYONE NEEDS TO THINK OF IT AS A SECONDARY FUEL SUPPLY TO HELP BURN OUR GAS AND DIESEL BETTER
Lol. Yeah everyone, hold hands and believe it works.
WILL YOU LAY OUT A BREAK DOWN OF EXACTLEY WHAT YOU TRIED.
HOW WORN OUT WAS THE CAR/TRUCK?
WHAT ENGINE DID IT HAVE ?
HOW DID YOU INSTALL ?
WHAT DID YOU INSTALL ?
WHAT DID YOU USE A CATLISIT ? HINT (USE LIQUID PEQUA DRAIN CLEANER) AND ONLY USE DISTILLED WATER MIX .
DID YOU USE A O2 SENSOR CONDITIONER AND A MASS AIR FLOW CONDITIONER
WERE THE PLATES MADE OF 316L STAINLESS STEEL ?
HOW MANY LITERS PER MIN. DID YOUR KIT MAKE ?
HOW MANY AMP'S. DID IT PULL ?
DON'T GIVE UP THE IDEA BECAUSE I KNOW IT WORKS!!
TROOPER LUVR
01-30-2010, 12:16 AM #22OK SO YOU HAVE AND WASEN'T IMPRESSED.
WILL YOU LAY OUT A BREAK DOWN OF EXACTLEY WHAT YOU TRIED.
HOW WORN OUT WAS THE CAR/TRUCK?
WHAT ENGINE DID IT HAVE ?
HOW DID YOU INSTALL ?
WHAT DID YOU INSTALL ?
WHAT DID YOU USE A CATLISIT ? HINT (USE LIQUID PEQUA DRAIN CLEANER) AND ONLY USE DISTILLED WATER MIX .
DID YOU USE A O2 SENSOR CONDITIONER AND A MASS AIR FLOW CONDITIONER
WERE THE PLATES MADE OF 316L STAINLESS STEEL ?
HOW MANY LITERS PER MIN. DID YOUR KIT MAKE ?
HOW MANY AMP'S. DID IT PULL ?
DON'T GIVE UP THE IDEA BECAUSE I KNOW IT WORKS!!
(01-30-2010, 12:16 AM)TROOPER LUVR DON'T GIVE UP THE IDEA BECAUSE I KNOW IT WORKS!!
You should give up. Otherwise you're going to annoy a lot of people.
No-one has yet been able to prove any gains from HHO. Crap like modifying MAF and O2 sensors is used to make the engine run lean and make people think the silly bubbling jar actually does something useful.
(01-30-2010, 12:16 AM)TROOPER LUVR DON'T GIVE UP THE IDEA BECAUSE I KNOW IT WORKS!!
You should give up. Otherwise you're going to annoy a lot of people.
No-one has yet been able to prove any gains from HHO. Crap like modifying MAF and O2 sensors is used to make the engine run lean and make people think the silly bubbling jar actually does something useful.
THAT IS YOU CAN'T WIN A PISSIN CONTEST WITH A SKUNK !!!!!!
LOL LOL LOL
SO FOR ME THIS IS NOW THIS IS A CLOSED SUBJECT !
TROOPER LUVR
01-30-2010, 12:34 AM #24WELL YOU JUST PROVED A LONG TOLD STORY TO ME!!!!
THAT IS YOU CAN'T WIN A PISSIN CONTEST WITH A SKUNK !!!!!!
LOL LOL LOL
SO FOR ME THIS IS NOW THIS IS A CLOSED SUBJECT !
(01-30-2010, 12:21 AM)Kiwibacon Crap like modifying MAF and O2 sensors is used to make the engine run lean and make people think the silly bubbling jar actually does something useful.
Point exactly, thank you.
This isn't some gullible hippy forum. The people here actually have an understanding of science, a desire to learn the reason WHY something does/doesn't work.
Jumping in and saying you KNOW something works won't cut the crap, especially when everything in the natural world says it won't and nobody has been willing to step-up and prove otherwise with scientific methods and repeatable testing.
Claiming "I got x-mpg increase and more power" isn't proof, its anecdotal text on a computer screen.
ForcedInduction
01-30-2010, 07:03 AM
#25
(01-30-2010, 12:21 AM)Kiwibacon Crap like modifying MAF and O2 sensors is used to make the engine run lean and make people think the silly bubbling jar actually does something useful.
Point exactly, thank you.
This isn't some gullible hippy forum. The people here actually have an understanding of science, a desire to learn the reason WHY something does/doesn't work.
Jumping in and saying you KNOW something works won't cut the crap, especially when everything in the natural world says it won't and nobody has been willing to step-up and prove otherwise with scientific methods and repeatable testing.
Claiming "I got x-mpg increase and more power" isn't proof, its anecdotal text on a computer screen.
(01-30-2010, 12:16 AM)TROOPER LUVR DON'T GIVE UP THE IDEA BECAUSE I KNOW IT WORKS!!
Start from first principles, and write down a proof of why it works. If you make a claim about the H2 acting like a catalyst, you should be able to write down a chemical reaction and explain it. I claim you can't, because it doesn't. Furthermore, you need to factor in the power drawn from the engine by the extra alternator load. In order to say "it works" you need to show the extra power from the engine is greater than this draw. This involves calculating the efficiency of the various intermediate steps. Once you have done that, then you can start to make claims which you will then check by designing a set of experiments that isolates the necessary variables. Only then can you make claims of "knowing that it works". If you haven't done that, you should say "I feel it works" instead of "I know it works". And for christ's bloody sake turn off your caps-lock.
GREASY_BEAST
01-30-2010, 03:53 PM #26(01-30-2010, 12:16 AM)TROOPER LUVR DON'T GIVE UP THE IDEA BECAUSE I KNOW IT WORKS!!
Start from first principles, and write down a proof of why it works. If you make a claim about the H2 acting like a catalyst, you should be able to write down a chemical reaction and explain it. I claim you can't, because it doesn't. Furthermore, you need to factor in the power drawn from the engine by the extra alternator load. In order to say "it works" you need to show the extra power from the engine is greater than this draw. This involves calculating the efficiency of the various intermediate steps. Once you have done that, then you can start to make claims which you will then check by designing a set of experiments that isolates the necessary variables. Only then can you make claims of "knowing that it works". If you haven't done that, you should say "I feel it works" instead of "I know it works". And for christ's bloody sake turn off your caps-lock.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGSnFGA9oVo
First is at idle. The engine can't handle that much water so it bogs down.
Second is at a steady 2000rpm. When the Water/Methanol injection system is activated manually the engine RPMs rise due to the Methanol's energy added to combustion. There is enough excess energy released to overcome the electrical load of the 100psi pump and the friction/inertia of the engine. When in use on the road this will measurably and consistently increase both power and fuel economy.
If you have an HHO system please do this test and report back your video results (with throttle linkage in view).
If your HHO system can genuinely replicate this test by producing enough excess energy to raise the engine's RPMs solely on the hydrogen fuel it produces on demand (not stored in a tank from earlier production), I'll admit "HHO generators" can work and probably buy one as well.
ForcedInduction
04-04-2010, 08:44 AM
#27
Here is the test I described earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGSnFGA9oVo
First is at idle. The engine can't handle that much water so it bogs down.
Second is at a steady 2000rpm. When the Water/Methanol injection system is activated manually the engine RPMs rise due to the Methanol's energy added to combustion. There is enough excess energy released to overcome the electrical load of the 100psi pump and the friction/inertia of the engine. When in use on the road this will measurably and consistently increase both power and fuel economy.
If you have an HHO system please do this test and report back your video results (with throttle linkage in view).
If your HHO system can genuinely replicate this test by producing enough excess energy to raise the engine's RPMs solely on the hydrogen fuel it produces on demand (not stored in a tank from earlier production), I'll admit "HHO generators" can work and probably buy one as well.
(04-04-2010, 08:44 AM)ForcedInduction Here is the test I described earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGSnFGA9oVo
First is at idle. The engine can't handle that much water so it bogs down.
Second is at a steady 2000rpm. When the Water/Methanol injection system is activated manually the engine RPMs rise due to the Methanol's energy added to combustion. There is enough excess energy released to overcome the electrical load of the 100psi pump and the friction/inertia of the engine. When in use on the road this will measurably and consistently increase both power and fuel economy.
If you have an HHO system please do this test and report back your video results (with throttle linkage in view).
If your HHO system can genuinely replicate this test by producing enough excess energy to raise the engine's RPMs solely on the hydrogen fuel it produces on demand (not stored in a tank from earlier production), I'll admit "HHO generators" can work and probably buy one as well.
This sounds like a bet. But we need to flesh out a few more parameters.
Does the test have to be run on a diesel engine, or can a gasoline engine be used.
Though the throttle has to be kept at the same setting, can other parameters be adjusted? Such as ignition or injector timing for example.
If I fail, I must suffer the public humiliation. If I win . . . ? Are you forced to buy my hydrogen generator setup and suffer the public humiliation?
Just asking to see how far you want to go with this.
By the way, I don't have an "HHO system" for sale, so . . . we'll just have to leave it at public humiliation.
RustyLugNut
05-02-2010, 01:10 PM #28(04-04-2010, 08:44 AM)ForcedInduction Here is the test I described earlier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGSnFGA9oVo
First is at idle. The engine can't handle that much water so it bogs down.
Second is at a steady 2000rpm. When the Water/Methanol injection system is activated manually the engine RPMs rise due to the Methanol's energy added to combustion. There is enough excess energy released to overcome the electrical load of the 100psi pump and the friction/inertia of the engine. When in use on the road this will measurably and consistently increase both power and fuel economy.
If you have an HHO system please do this test and report back your video results (with throttle linkage in view).
If your HHO system can genuinely replicate this test by producing enough excess energy to raise the engine's RPMs solely on the hydrogen fuel it produces on demand (not stored in a tank from earlier production), I'll admit "HHO generators" can work and probably buy one as well.
This sounds like a bet. But we need to flesh out a few more parameters.
Does the test have to be run on a diesel engine, or can a gasoline engine be used.
Though the throttle has to be kept at the same setting, can other parameters be adjusted? Such as ignition or injector timing for example.
If I fail, I must suffer the public humiliation. If I win . . . ? Are you forced to buy my hydrogen generator setup and suffer the public humiliation?
Just asking to see how far you want to go with this.
By the way, I don't have an "HHO system" for sale, so . . . we'll just have to leave it at public humiliation.
(05-02-2010, 01:10 PM)RustyLugNut But we need to flesh out a few more parameters.Run the engine at a constant RPM, feed it the HHO. If the RPMs rise with the HHO on and fall back when shutoff, then its producing excess energy and has the potential to increase fuel economy.
It works with the WI because the fuel source (methanol) is already made. It doesn't with HHO because the engine has to expend energy to release the hydrogen from its stable water bond. The energy released from combustion of the hydrogen is less than the fuel consumed driving the alternator since gaseous hydrogen is a very weak fuel for an IC engine. For hydrogen to work as a viable fuel you need to produce very large amounts of it, 2L/minute isn't even remotely close to what an IC engine needs to propel a vehicle. (See post #8)
Quote:Does the test have to be run on a diesel engine, or can a gasoline engine be used.G@s engines must maintain a set A/F ratio, so no, the test doesn't work the same. Adding an external fuel source will just displace some of the primary fuel (EFI) or make it run rich (properly tuned carb).
ForcedInduction
05-06-2010, 07:42 AM
#29
(05-02-2010, 01:10 PM)RustyLugNut But we need to flesh out a few more parameters.Run the engine at a constant RPM, feed it the HHO. If the RPMs rise with the HHO on and fall back when shutoff, then its producing excess energy and has the potential to increase fuel economy.
It works with the WI because the fuel source (methanol) is already made. It doesn't with HHO because the engine has to expend energy to release the hydrogen from its stable water bond. The energy released from combustion of the hydrogen is less than the fuel consumed driving the alternator since gaseous hydrogen is a very weak fuel for an IC engine. For hydrogen to work as a viable fuel you need to produce very large amounts of it, 2L/minute isn't even remotely close to what an IC engine needs to propel a vehicle. (See post #8)
Quote:Does the test have to be run on a diesel engine, or can a gasoline engine be used.G@s engines must maintain a set A/F ratio, so no, the test doesn't work the same. Adding an external fuel source will just displace some of the primary fuel (EFI) or make it run rich (properly tuned carb).
(05-06-2010, 07:42 AM)ForcedInduction(05-02-2010, 01:10 PM)RustyLugNut But we need to flesh out a few more parameters.Run the engine at a constant RPM, feed it the HHO. If the RPMs rise with the HHO on and fall back when shutoff, then its producing excess energy and has the potential to increase fuel economy.
It works with the WI because the fuel source (methanol) is already made. It doesn't with HHO because the engine has to expend energy to release the hydrogen from its stable water bond. The energy released from combustion of the hydrogen is less than the fuel consumed driving the alternator since gaseous hydrogen is a very weak fuel for an IC engine. For hydrogen to work as a viable fuel you need to produce very large amounts of it, 2L/minute isn't even remotely close to what an IC engine needs to propel a vehicle. (See post #8)
Quote:Does the test have to be run on a diesel engine, or can a gasoline engine be used.G@s engines must maintain a set A/F ratio, so no, the test doesn't work the same. Adding an external fuel source will just displace some of the primary fuel (EFI) or make it run rich (properly tuned carb).
I have no intentions of even trying to propel a vehicle with electrolytically produced hydrogen. A precursory overview of the science involved shows that on-board hydrogen generation via electrolysis will never motivate an IC longer than the time period needed to drain the batteries.
However, there has been and continues to be, notable research on hydrogen augmented combustion ( college, university & government levels). With SI ICs, it seems to be a simple near-linear relationship between flame front speed and increased percentages of hydrogen augmentation. With diesel ignition (DI), the relationship is more complex with the flame front softened and the lift-off shortened and the resultant heat release occurring in a narrower range of crank angle, with increasing hydrogen augmentation, until about 4% by volume H2 is reached at which point the H2 flame begins to dominate by it's ability to outrun the flame front.
The aforementioned tests were run using cached sources of H2 or on-board reformation techniques. The question we would like to answer is, does hydrogen augmentation, with an on board electrolysis device, give positive net results? Even with the very small quantities of H2 added by the electrolysis generator?
Your Idle RPM change is a good place to start. I will look into setting up a demonstration.
On a side note, adding a stoichiometric mix of H2 and O2 does not cause your SI gasoline engine to run "rich". I have argued this with the denizens of the various HHO groups. They seem to be technically inclined tinkerers with no understanding of HS and 1st year general chemistry. While running an Innovate wide band O2 sensor in the exhaust, I have not seen a rich condition with the addition of the so called HHO.
Thank you for continuing this engaging discussion.
RustyLugNut
05-07-2010, 11:32 AM #30(05-06-2010, 07:42 AM)ForcedInduction(05-02-2010, 01:10 PM)RustyLugNut But we need to flesh out a few more parameters.Run the engine at a constant RPM, feed it the HHO. If the RPMs rise with the HHO on and fall back when shutoff, then its producing excess energy and has the potential to increase fuel economy.
It works with the WI because the fuel source (methanol) is already made. It doesn't with HHO because the engine has to expend energy to release the hydrogen from its stable water bond. The energy released from combustion of the hydrogen is less than the fuel consumed driving the alternator since gaseous hydrogen is a very weak fuel for an IC engine. For hydrogen to work as a viable fuel you need to produce very large amounts of it, 2L/minute isn't even remotely close to what an IC engine needs to propel a vehicle. (See post #8)
Quote:Does the test have to be run on a diesel engine, or can a gasoline engine be used.G@s engines must maintain a set A/F ratio, so no, the test doesn't work the same. Adding an external fuel source will just displace some of the primary fuel (EFI) or make it run rich (properly tuned carb).
I have no intentions of even trying to propel a vehicle with electrolytically produced hydrogen. A precursory overview of the science involved shows that on-board hydrogen generation via electrolysis will never motivate an IC longer than the time period needed to drain the batteries.
However, there has been and continues to be, notable research on hydrogen augmented combustion ( college, university & government levels). With SI ICs, it seems to be a simple near-linear relationship between flame front speed and increased percentages of hydrogen augmentation. With diesel ignition (DI), the relationship is more complex with the flame front softened and the lift-off shortened and the resultant heat release occurring in a narrower range of crank angle, with increasing hydrogen augmentation, until about 4% by volume H2 is reached at which point the H2 flame begins to dominate by it's ability to outrun the flame front.
The aforementioned tests were run using cached sources of H2 or on-board reformation techniques. The question we would like to answer is, does hydrogen augmentation, with an on board electrolysis device, give positive net results? Even with the very small quantities of H2 added by the electrolysis generator?
Your Idle RPM change is a good place to start. I will look into setting up a demonstration.
On a side note, adding a stoichiometric mix of H2 and O2 does not cause your SI gasoline engine to run "rich". I have argued this with the denizens of the various HHO groups. They seem to be technically inclined tinkerers with no understanding of HS and 1st year general chemistry. While running an Innovate wide band O2 sensor in the exhaust, I have not seen a rich condition with the addition of the so called HHO.
Thank you for continuing this engaging discussion.
(05-07-2010, 11:32 AM)RustyLugNut I have no intentions of even trying to propel a vehicle with electrolytically produced hydrogen.Um, thats the entire point of doing it......
Quote:until about 4% by volume H2 is reached at which point the H2 flame begins to dominate by it's ability to outrun the flame front.In other words "H2" is being used as a fuel to propel the vehicle, contradictory to your statement above. Plus, I have yet to see any device capable of producing even remotely near that much hydrogen fuel on demand. The average device's 2L/m is a drop in a bucket compared to 4% cylinder volume. (see post #15)
Quote:The question we would like to answer is, does hydrogen augmentation, with an on board electrolysis device, give positive net results? Even with the very small quantities of H2 added by the electrolysis generator?According to physics and every scientific method test, no.
Quote:On a side note, adding a stoichiometric mix of H2 and O2 does not cause your SI gasoline engine to run "rich".It will when the engine is already tuned properly to deliver the correct amount of fuel.
Quote:They seem to be technically inclined tinkerers with no understanding of HS and 1st year general chemistry.Typical HHO argument, attack the debater's education or person instead of their facts.
Quote:While running an Innovate wide band O2 sensor in the exhaust, I have not seen a rich condition with the addition of the so called HHO.Thats because your device can't produce enough of it to make a mass measurable difference. As you yourself said "Even with the very small quantities of H2 added by the electrolysis generator"
ForcedInduction
05-07-2010, 05:23 PM
#31
(05-07-2010, 11:32 AM)RustyLugNut I have no intentions of even trying to propel a vehicle with electrolytically produced hydrogen.Um, thats the entire point of doing it......
Quote:until about 4% by volume H2 is reached at which point the H2 flame begins to dominate by it's ability to outrun the flame front.In other words "H2" is being used as a fuel to propel the vehicle, contradictory to your statement above. Plus, I have yet to see any device capable of producing even remotely near that much hydrogen fuel on demand. The average device's 2L/m is a drop in a bucket compared to 4% cylinder volume. (see post #15)
Quote:The question we would like to answer is, does hydrogen augmentation, with an on board electrolysis device, give positive net results? Even with the very small quantities of H2 added by the electrolysis generator?According to physics and every scientific method test, no.
Quote:On a side note, adding a stoichiometric mix of H2 and O2 does not cause your SI gasoline engine to run "rich".It will when the engine is already tuned properly to deliver the correct amount of fuel.
Quote:They seem to be technically inclined tinkerers with no understanding of HS and 1st year general chemistry.Typical HHO argument, attack the debater's education or person instead of their facts.
Quote:While running an Innovate wide band O2 sensor in the exhaust, I have not seen a rich condition with the addition of the so called HHO.Thats because your device can't produce enough of it to make a mass measurable difference. As you yourself said "Even with the very small quantities of H2 added by the electrolysis generator"
GREASY_BEAST
05-09-2010, 10:27 AM #32ummm... so adding fuel (or catalyst) via the intake air will NOT cause idle rpm to change, unless you are adding so much fuel that the engine is running on said fuel alone. The IP Governor will just pull the rack back to compensate, and your idle speed will remain invariant. Therefore, the idle speed test is a bad test.
(05-09-2010, 10:27 AM)GREASY_BEAST (or catalyst)No such thing. HHO, propane, methanol, etc are all a supplemental fuel. A catalyst, by definition, would be coming out the exhaust unchanged.
Quote:via the intake air will NOT cause idle rpm to changeIntake introduced fuels detonate at slow speeds so the engine bogs instead of accelerating since its trying to compress expanding gasses. Higher rpm is necessary to increase piston velocity to keep up with the faster flame front and easier ignition.
Quote:The IP Governor will just pull the rack back to compensateOnly at idle and maximum rpm. From 1000rpm to 4500rpm the engine is ungoverned except by throttle input and engine load.
ForcedInduction
05-09-2010, 10:55 PM
#33
(05-09-2010, 10:27 AM)GREASY_BEAST (or catalyst)No such thing. HHO, propane, methanol, etc are all a supplemental fuel. A catalyst, by definition, would be coming out the exhaust unchanged.
Quote:via the intake air will NOT cause idle rpm to changeIntake introduced fuels detonate at slow speeds so the engine bogs instead of accelerating since its trying to compress expanding gasses. Higher rpm is necessary to increase piston velocity to keep up with the faster flame front and easier ignition.
Quote:The IP Governor will just pull the rack back to compensateOnly at idle and maximum rpm. From 1000rpm to 4500rpm the engine is ungoverned except by throttle input and engine load.
1 Guest(s)
1 Guest(s)