Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
HHO kits - Do they really work?
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
thank you for doing the experimenting. This confirms what I've been able to glean from all the stuff out there. It DOES work to some degree by allowing a leaner burn and yes the timing needs to be retarded. but it works best (so far) on carburated engines because there are many new tech components that would need to be adjusted in a newer engine. Some folks have achieved some success by moving the o2 sensor out from the exhaust manifold to compensate since the leaner burn fools the sensor into enriching the mix. keep up the testing as some of us would like to try this but lack your background.
by the way, the one I saw in operation in my town fed the hydro into the throat just below the carb. This worked better than intoducing it into the air cleaner.
keep us posted and I appreciate your open mind
Is this correct or was it a 4 cylinder motor?
Boy has this thread slowed down. I can't say I have seen anything definitive one way or another, but the postings here certainly have me leaning against the vialibility of these devices.
I do think adding the hydrogen and oxygen does something, and I still would love to know exactly what the addition of those gasses has on combustion. But it looks like most of the claims, particularly the 50%+ improvement claims, are just plain BS.
Here the site: Tony's Guide to Fuel saving
you simply can't get more energy out than you put in. That is physically impossible.
High school physics people. Just a scam.
We are talking about producing a small amount of hydrogen and oxygen from elec. and water to be mixed with the gasoline to cause a more efficient burn. Yes, the elec. comes from the alternator but we're not trying to produce enough hydr. to completely power the engine.
That's not even close to perpetual motion. Why talk down to everyone here?
Take a look at the site I posted, he discusses this claim, and how a complete engine redesign would be necessary to achieve this goal.
I believe the HHO promoters are saying the it provides a better combustion of what is burned. For example, many engines run better/get better mpg on higher octane fuel. The reason being (my understanding anyway) is because higher octane fuels burn slower. Apparantly that creates a better explosion to better move the piston. Another example would be pinging - pinging consumes fuel but does not help the engine make useable energy.
I think the 98% efficency is more useful when considering how clean something burns.
Or should I have not been lazy and actually read the link? :confuse:
Again, I'm not saying HHO systems work, I'm just saying the combustion process can be improved more than 2%, even if 98% of the fuel is burned. HHO likely is not the way to improve that, but there is room for improvement.
I did, saw the youtube on the 'plasmatron', and don't see a connection to the mason jars with electrodes being sold for HHO. This is 1999-2003 work on using high energy plasma to split gasoline, yielding hydrogen. They then talk about how, under the right conditions (higher compression, leaner fuel), the hydrogen might be able to improve fuel economy. None of this applies to HHO. As mentioned before, using hydrogen to improve fuel economy will require redesign of the engine, not a couple of wires, a jar, and a hose into the intake manifold.
Finally, if this was a great approach, there would be plenty of gas users (bus line, FedEx, etc.) all over it.
Strange, a search of the MIT Website does not list HHO as anything other than the Happy Hippie Organization - no, I'm not making this up.
I'm thinking that isn't the kind of HHO that is desired... though it looks interesting, and might even work - but not to increase MPG! :surprise:
Here we go again - 'our system is being tested by (pick one): the EPA, a major car maker, an investor, etc, etc.' The is complete BS until you show me a press release from anyone commenting on positive results. Until then, worthless information.
"No action with respect to any device or element of design referred to in
paragraph (3) shall be treated as a prohibited act under that
paragraph if the action is for the purpose of a conversion of a
motor vehicle for use of a clean alternative fuel.
Therefore alterations required to facilitate the use of this alternative are allowed and are NOT illegal. However, the vehicle must pass the gas emissions part of the test within limitations as prescribed.
This would be like hooking a bottle of ethanol with a hose to drip into the intake manifold. This is tampering, not 'conversion'.
Upon futher investigation with the State I was informed that the Map/Maf sensor is not defined as a part of the emissions system components. This may vary in other states. Did not say I agree/disagree with it. Just the way it is.
Show us one shread of evidence, please. As for the 'pre ignition catalytic converters', these have been tested many times and found to be useless.
Here we go with the conspiracy theories. What about all the companies that would collectively save billions of dollars if these things worked, like the police departments, FedEx, UPS, anybody that drives a car? What about the companies that would make billions selling these, like Walmart or Autozone? No reason for us to test us, if these folks don't buy it, that's good enought for me.
Vehicle engines are equipped with alternators or generators producing DC electricity to run the electrical devices on the car and charge the battery. Newer vehicles have alternators rated at a higher capacity than the vehicle needs. With the AC on high, headlights on bright, radio blaring and the horn blowing, most cars use less than half their available amperage.
Electrolysis uses low DC voltage and amperage to brute force crack H2O into its elements of H & O. More amperage means more HHO, up to a point because more amperage also means more heat. With too much heat you get steam, not harmful, but not helpful either.
The HHO gas is introduced into the intake manifold and mixed with the base fuel, gasoline or diesel. Engines run cooler with HHO and even more so with the timing retarded toward TDC (TOP Dead Center). Hydrogen has the effect of making the explosion happen much faster and more completely, therefore more efficiently resulting in less heat build up because of the speed. In other words, heat from the explosion doesn't have time to stick around accumulating more heat. Heat is enemy #1 to mechanical devices. For the internal combustion engine, less heat translates into longer intervals between oil changes (because the engine oil is not being cooked), bearings last longer and other components experience less heat fatigue. That translates to longer engine life.
As fuel explodes, the hydrogen actually implodes capturing the otherwise waste or unburnt gasoline (or diesel fuel) and forcing it to burn (more) complete, nearly eliminating all toxic emissions. This action-reaction creates more torque and power from the engine with less base fuel. Because of the more powerful explosion from adding hydrogen and pure oxygen to the mix, better gas mileage is realized. How much better is determined by several factors including driving habits, vehicle size, weight and condition. But most certainly savings are realized by extending the distance between fill-ups, tune-ups and regular maintenance, such as oil changes and filter replacements.
Hydrogen is rated at 130+ Octane. When mixed with gasoline, it boosts the octane rating of the gasoline. The octane rating indicates how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes "knocking" in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine. Lower-octane gas (like "regular" 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting compared to higher octane grades (like "super high test " 93-octane). This means that if you drive a high performance car with a high compression engine requiring high test, you can use regular 87 octane low grade with HHO boost and have a higher octane rating than the 93 at the pump. A significant savings realized...
The age and mileage of an engine are really irrelevant. There are cars and trucks all over the world with hundreds of thousands of miles that have upfitted HHO systems with very satisfactory results. An older engine will benefit more as the Hydrogen helps to clean out carbon deposits built up over years inside the engine and help it to operate more like it did when it was new. Kind of like unclogging blocked arteries.
In order to realize any significant fuel savings it is important to lean back on the base fuel to compensate for HHO input.
Since 1996 all US gasoline cars are mandated to have On Board Diagnostics (OBD) and all the sensors to go with it. There are 02 (Oxygen) Sensors, MAF (Mass Air Flow) Sensors, MAP (Mass Air Pressure) Sensors, IAT (Intake Air Temperature) Sensors and ECT (Engine Coolant Temperature) Sensors.
Oxygen sensors are like little noses in the exhaust stream sniffing out oxygen levels. When they smell excessive oxygen, they tell the ECU (Electronic Control Unit) to pour in more gas. When they smell less oxygen, they order less gas. When more oxygen is detected the computer system thinks the engine is running hot so it calls for more fuel to cool the engine. Airplane pilots are all familiar with engine mixture control, lean = hot : rich = cool.
When HHO (hydrogen & oxygen) is introduced, the little noses smell the additional oxygen in the exhaust and order up more fuel on the fire, exactly the opposite of what you are trying to accomplish. To combat this, you can extend the sensor's nose out of the direct oxygen stream. It's still there and functioning properly, it's just a little further upwind.
With the introduction of around 1 lpm of HHO for every 2.5 L of engine size, less gasoline is required. Extending the 02 sensor is one way to reduce the fuel volume supply. Another way is electronically. An oxygen sensor will typically generate up to about 0.9 volts when the fuel mixture is rich and there is little unburned oxygen in the exhaust. When the mixture is lean, the sensor’s output voltage will drop down as low as 0.1 volts. When the air/fuel mixture is balanced or at the equilibrium point of about 14.7 to 1, the sensor will read around 0.45 volts. When the computer receives a rich signal (high voltage) from the O2 sensor, it leans the fuel mixture to reduce the sensor’s reading. When the O2 sensor reading goes lean (low voltage), the computer reverses again making the fuel mixture go rich. This happens constantly about 3 or more times per second in most engines.
To compensate for the input HHO and electronically control the O2 sensor to request less fuel (lower voltage) can be accomplished with basically a resistor and a potentiometer.
The MAF (Mass Air Flow) Sensor advises the ECU of the air volume coming into the air intake. It also communicates in voltageese, up to about 5 volts. More air dictates a higher voltage. A higher voltage is a request for more gas input. Lower air means lower voltage and a request for less gas input. One way to control the MAF sensor to request less fuel is to simply restrict the intake air flow so it thinks it is at higher elevation, (less air = less fuel input). The MAF sensor can also be electronically enhanced much the same as the 02 sensor. The negative side would be to get overzealous and lean excessively causing unwanted heat and the problems associated with it. When tuning these sensors it is advantageous and highly advised to monitor the exhaust temperature and maintain at the original temperature or less.
The ECU likes a warm engine, not hot, just warm. When the engine is warm, the ECU regulates less fuel input. Simple resistors installed parallel across the CTS (Coolant Temp sensor) and the IAT (Intake Air Temp) sensor inform the ECU of a temp reading about 10 degrees warmer than actual which will dictate a little less fuel input. Installing a certain resistor on the IAT sensor also causes the ti
On diesel engines and carbuerated engines, the electronic gadgetry is generally moot. Just pipe into the intake and go. Some tuning to reduce fuel input may be required. For HHO inputs of around 1 lpm per 2.5 L engine size, timing adjustment may be helpful, but not necessary. When you can feed large doses of HHO, then timing becomes a issue.
I have studied this concept, built a system and installed it on my personal vehicle and know it works. Gained 32.5% or almost 5 mpg on a 5.3L V8 gas engine SUV.
For those who can't or don't, get out of the way for those of us that do.
And THAT's why a lot of us are REALLY skeptical about these claims.
ANYTHING that increases mileage by 32% is worth a lot more than a home experiment.
"If it works, someone would be getting rich from it."
Skepitcal but in no way constructive. You imply in your response that this guy is lying unless he is willing to try to turn a profit from the idea.
Since when has the american market been driven by better fuel econmy? Look at all the gas guzling cars on the road. When we really WANT economy over luxery, gadgetry and prestige...then you might see this idea available in the marketplace.
For 5 more mpg I don't think the average car owner is going to get very excited. We are a very complacent society.
If you are really interrested in finding out if it works...like I said a long while back... go out in your garage and build one. But that would require turning off the computer and getting you hands dirty. It's so much easier to knock those that have done it.
So it works. Why is that a problem?
And I'm not implying the previous lengthy poster is lying, I'm stating outright that the post contains numerous lies. Here are just some of the biggest:
Lie #1: “Vehicle engines are equipped with alternators or generators producing DC electricity to run the electrical devices on the car and charge the battery. Newer vehicles have alternators rated at a higher capacity than the vehicle needs. With the AC on high, headlights on bright, radio blaring and the horn blowing, most cars use less than half their available amperage.”
Fact: There is no extra “available amperage” available to use for free in the engine. Any electrical load (AC, headlights, radio, etc.) places a load on the engine, and requires the use of extra gasoline. To claim otherwise is evidence of complete ignorance of how engines and alternators work.
Lie #2: “The HHO gas is introduced into the intake manifold and mixed with the base fuel, gasoline or diesel. Engines run cooler with HHO and even more so with the timing retarded toward TDC (TOP Dead Center). Hydrogen has the effect of making the explosion happen much faster and more completely, therefore more efficiently resulting in less heat build up because of the speed. In other words, heat from the explosion doesn't have time to stick around accumulating more heat. Heat is enemy #1 to mechanical devices. For the internal combustion engine, less heat translates into longer intervals between oil changes (because the engine oil is not being cooked), bearings last longer and other components experience less heat fatigue. That translates to longer engine life.
Fact: Any release of heat, by burning gas or hydrogen, cannot sneak out of the combustion chamber. The speed of heat conduction to the engine depends in no way on the source of the heat. Also, the claim of less heat by retarding timing is exactly opposite of what happens in an engine, and is the opposite of what every car engine designer tries to do to maximize efficiency. Utter nonsense.
Lie #3: As fuel explodes, the hydrogen actually implodes capturing the otherwise waste or unburnt gasoline (or diesel fuel) and forcing it to burn (more) complete, nearly eliminating all toxic emissions. This action-reaction creates more torque and power from the engine with less base fuel. Because of the more powerful explosion from adding hydrogen and pure oxygen to the mix, better gas mileage is realized. How much better is determined by several factors including driving habits, vehicle size, weight and condition. But most certainly savings are realized by extending the distance between fill-ups, tune-ups and regular maintenance, such as oil changes and filter replacements.
Fact: A number of whoppers here. No such thing as hydrogen ‘imploding’. Next, and common to many HHO scam explanations, is the claim that much gasoline remains unburned during combustion. Back in the 1940s airplane engines burned their fuel to over 95% completion, and modern computer-controlled engines are even better. Here are the actual facts for airplane engines And here they are for carsOften, the HHO scammers use numbers like ‘70% of the fuel is wasted’. Another lie, what is true is that about 70% of the fuel’s energy is lost as heat, rather than mechanical energy to move the car. This is, of course, another reason HHO CANNOT WORK. Even if hydrogen was generated with no loss in energy, 70% of that energy is then lost as heat when the hydrogen is burned.
That’s enough for now.
"For 5 more mpg I don't think the average car owner is going to get very excited. We are a very complacent society. "
The claim was 35% which was 5 mpg. And I'm telling you, if you can ACTUALLY improve mileage by just 5 mpg, people would be more than excited and would be jumping at the chance to get whatever it is that would get that gain.
Let's take a hypothetical... I own a car that gets 50mpg. "Only 5 mpg" is a 10% increase in mileage. How much did YOU pay for fuel in the past year and would you want 10% of that back? Of course you would. I've spent over $3000 on gasoline in 2008 alone. And my cars only get in the 30's for mileage. That 5 mpg is more like a 15% increase. So a device or system that would get that kind of increase would be worth at least $400 - $500 to me as it would pay for itself in the first year. I'd WANT something like that to work and so would everyone else I know. But wanting something to work doesn't mean it would work, but it sure opens up the door for scammers to jump in claiming they can fill our wants and desires... for a small amount of cash of course.
It's really pretty simple. If someone wants to prove that these things work, come out and do so. I truly hope someone can.
Mike Allen from Popular Mechanics had an HHO kit built to test it out and it did nothing to improve mileage. Did he have it built wrong? Not installed it right? He spoke with the guy from the website offering the system for $1000 to $1600. (I guess HE wants to make money from an idea??) He was told that "that the HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes. The fuel savings doesn't come from the energy contained in the hydrogen as it's burned, which is what I've asserted all along was implausible. Giroux sells a system of modifications that disables the engine management's computer and makes the engine run extremely lean"
What a surprise... you need to buy more stuff and modify your car to make the first useless stuff work.
Red flag... it's spelled SCAM
From MSN Money
The EPA to date has tested in the neighborhood of 100 gas-saving devices, the most recent at the request of the Federal Trade Commission, and only six "indicated a very small improvement in fuel economy without an increase in exhaust emissions."
Another four also made the itty-bitty improvement cut, but per federal regulations, the exhaust emission trade-offs mean consumers who slap these on their cars could face charges of illegal tampering.
Differences of opinion are really quite respected. Peabrained accusations from the uninformed however are not.
You know, there were a lot of negative people just like you trying to convince Orville and Wulbur that they couldn't get it up. Man it's a good thing the brothers didn't pay attention to the likes of you, otherwise Boeing wouldn't be building the DreamLiner today.
Firstly, not once did I represent the illiusion that anything is for free. Vehicles are equipped with alternators that generally do have more capacity available than is actually required with all systems functioning. Electrolysis does require voltage and amperage, about the same amount required to run your high beams. I'll spend that for more mpg any day.
Your other claims may be pretty much on target were the subject simply gasoline related, but we're discussing the topic of Hydrogen/Oxygen suplementation here.
Hydrogen/Oxygen vapor is not gasoline nor is it diesel fuel nor does it bahave in the same manner.
HHO is a mixture of mon-atomic and di-atomic hydrogen and oxygen in a 2:1 hydrogen to oxygen ratio. So there are four molecules which are mixed in varying ratios; H hydrogen, O oxygen, H2 di-hydrogen and O2 di-oxygen. But all in all, in the mixture there are always two hydrogen atoms for every one oxygen atom.
When the mixture has very little mon-atomic hydrogen and oxygen and a spark or flame is presented, there is the typical violent di-atomic hydrogen explosion. This is because the breaking of the bonds in the di-atomic gasses requires energy and the energy comes from the atomic energy of the reaction itself. There is so much heat, so fast, that there is a violent expansion, or explosion. Once the explosion has happened, it is followed immediately by an implosion; because the split atoms are mon-atomic and can now combine to form water. When the HHO Gas mixture is mostly mon-atomic, then the atoms simply implode to form water. No atomic bonds need to be broken so no self-propigation energy is needed. The potential atomic energy is released in a random fashon if not directed, as in a flame.
In order to work on a piston engine, the fuel-air mixture needs to burn at a speed faster than the piston is moving. Low hydrogen flame speed is at a disadvantage as compared with most other gaseous fuels. For comparison, a gasoline-air mixture has a flame front speed that ranges typically from 70 up to 170 feet/second in IC engines, while an ideal hydrogen-air mixture has a flame front speed of about 8 feet/second. An average vehicle engine rotating at 2,000 rpm (33 revolutions per second) produces piston linear speed of 45 feet/second in the midstroke, which is already 5 times faster than the hydrogen flame front speed ! The fact that a hydrogen-air mixture has a flame front speed of about 1/10 that of a gasoline-air mixture contributes to explain why hydrogen engines only run at reduced power and low rpm under load.
However, the detonation mode is extremely rapid and totally removes this limitation to hydrogen.
Detonation at the TDC is not followed by a long confinement time. Furthermore, because the pressure pulse is 15 to 30 times shorter at the top dead center, detonation invariably occurs there, and because compression occurs late after the intake is done, it does not easily backfire. H2 and O2 are not the only gasses in the air mix. The burn speed, not the flame front, the burn speed is many times faster than gasoline and you can prove it to yourself. Make a ziplock baggie full of HHO gas and ignite it in your garage. Watch how fast it blows the windows out.
Please contact MIT and inform their science department that there is no such thing as hydrogen implosion and they are liars: http://www.physorg.com/news123424080.html
You may as well go ahead and contact NASA and let them know that they are also liars and their findings on Emissions and total Energy consumption of a multi-cylinder piston engine running on gasoline and a hydrogen-gasoline mixture are nothing but lies: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19770016170_1977016170.pdf
A crude visual of hydrogen implosion. Must be trick photography: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkrCCo4Q0cI&feature=related
Arvin Meritor, an $8 Billion a year comapany is investing heavily in a Hydrogen On-Demand Fuel Supplement unit: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Arvinmeritor+pursues+a+different+hydrogen+strategy- -a0122376702
http://www.arvinmeritor.com/media_room/render_news.asp?message_id=000000001A4473- 90AA6611CD9BC800AA002FC45A0900CEE5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E019000000011D500000CE- E5ADC7AA9FD411A2F20008C791E01900000001737F0000
Ronn Maxwell and former Dell, Inc. executive Adrian Pylypec, near Austin, are manufacturinging a $150'000.00 eco sports car with Hydrogen On-demand and with a reported 40 mpg: http://www.ronnmotors.com/cms/
Please contact these folks and tell them they are making huge mistakes and they've been lied to and HHO On-Demand is a lie and won't work before they make any further expensive mistakes!
Oh, and please DON'T tell my Tahoe I lied and it's not supposed to get any better fuel efficiency off HHO, it keeps on doing it, so it must not be aware that it can't.
Here is a synopsis of a sampling of research that has been done on Hydrogen supplementation in the IC engine, not just experiments or studies in progress: In 1974 John Houseman and D.J/Cerini of the Jet Propulsion Lab, California Institute of Technology produced a report for the Society of Automotive Engineers entitled "On-Board Hydrogen Generator for a Partial Hydrogen Injection Internal Combustion Engine". In 1974 F.W. Hoehn and M.W. Dowy of the Jet Propulsion Lab, prepared a report for the 9th Inter Society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, entitled "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline."
In the early eighties George Vosper P. Eng., ex-professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor, designed and patented a device to transform internal combustion engines to run on hydrogen. He later affirms: "A small amount of hydrogen added to the air intake of a gasoline engine would enhance the flame velocity and thus permit the engine to operate with leaner air to gasoline mixture than otherwise possible. The result, far less pollution with more power and better mileage."
In 1995, Wagner, Jamal and Wyszynski, at the University of Birmingham UK, Engineering, Mechanical and manufacturing, demonstrated the advantages of "Fractional addition of hydrogen to internal combustion engines by exhaust gas fuel reforming." The process yielded benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions.
Roy MacAlister, PE of the American Hydrogen Association states the "Use of mixtures of hydrogen in small quantities and conventional fuels offers significant reducti
At the HYPOTHESIS Conference, University of Cassino, Italy, June 26-29, 1995, a Hydrogen Injection group of scientists from the University of Birmingham, UK, presented a study about hydrogen as a fraction of the fuel. In the abstract of that study it stated: "Hydrogen, when used as a fractional additive at extreme lean engine operation, yields benefits in improved combustion stability and reduced nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon emissions."
In the Spring of 1997, at an international conference held by the University of Calgary, a team of scientists representing the Department of Energy Engineering, Zhejiang University, China, presented a mathematical model for the process of formation and restraint of toxic emissions in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines. Using the theory of chemical dynamics of combustion, the group elaborated an explanation of the mechanism of forming toxic emissions in spark ignition engines. The results of their experimental investigation conclude that because of the characteristics of hydrogen, the mixture can rapidly burn in hydrogen-gasoline mixture fueled engines, thus toxic emissions are restrained. These studies and other research on hydrogen as a fuel supplement generated big efforts in trying to develop practical systems to enhance internal combustion engine performance. A few of them materialized in patented devices.
In May of 2007 Purdue University conducted dynamometer testing on Diesel engines with HHO supplementation and concluded that "Amazing diesel test results average 15% overall Improvement with Hydrogen".
California Environmental Engineering (CEE) has tested this technology and found reduction on all exhaust emissions. They subsequently stated: "CEE feels that the result of this test verifies that this technology is a viable source for reducing emissions and fuel consumption on large diesel engines."
The American Hydrogen Association Test Lab tested this technology and proved that: "Emissions test results indicate that a decrease of toxic emissions was realized." Again, zero emissions were observed on CO.
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology. Vehicle subjected to dynamometer loading in controlled conditions showed drastic reduction of emissions and improved horsepower.
Corrections Canada tested several systems and concluded, "The hydrogen system is a valuable tool in helping Corrections Canada meet the overall Green Plan by: reducing vehicle emissions down to an acceptable level and meeting the stringent emissions standard set out by California and British Columbia; reducing the amount of fuel consumed by increased mileage." Additionally, their analysis pointed out that this solution is the most cost effective. For their research they granted the C.S.C. Environmental Award.
The real number one reason that HHO Supplementation has not been in the market has nothing to do with any conspiracies, however it is widely known that big oil and the government have done their utmost to rat hole the information, anyway the reason is simple economics. Until recently, fuel prices have been cheap enough that nobody cared about any HHO supplement.
For those of you who can't or don't, get out of the way for those of us that do!
Oh, and by-the-way, I don't recommend that you use a jelly jar or fishing wire or baking soda. Do the research and use only high grade quality materials. It'll cost way more than $30 to get it right, more like several hundred. Sorry, but you can't find this information with purchasing a $49 or $99 instruction set off the internet. It'll take some time and effort. You'd actually have to do something...
But wait, what kind of results are you getting from your Hydrogen Electrolysis Generator that you built? For someone so negative and cynical who tries to come off as the know-all expert, surely you have at least installed one on your car and couldn't get it work for you
Just because it is not so easy that you can just sit on your [non-permissible content removed] and poke a computer and have all information simply appear before you doesn't mean it doesn't exist or didn't take place. Try contacting the sources and personally inquiring. Don't be so lazy. Noone owes you anything. Do your own work. Meanwhile try reading the information presented and understanding its contents.
I posted to this forum to share an experience with folks that genuinely seemed interested in building and experimenting with their own Hydrogen Generator, not to enter a p!$$!ng contest. I will no longer trade jabs with the short minded. I have much better ways to spend my time.
There are literally thousands of folks out there right now tinkering with this stuff. There are a few kits available on the marketplace now and many more to come. There are a couple that may actually be worthwhile. Success comes in doing. If you want to build your own, know that the quality of materials selected, type of electrolyte solution, plate spacing, amperage and voltage are all important subjects to consider and understand. In order to realize any serious mpg improvements on late model engines, it is important to understand about oxygen sensors, MAP/MAF sensors, even the IAT and CTS should be addressed. There are methods of addressing these sensors to enhance the HHO introduction. The O2 sensor(s) upstream of the catalytic convertor must be addressed in order to realize any mpg gains with HHO.
There are other forums out there with good information and posters that are at various stages in actually building their own systems.
Anyone genuinely interested in the subject, it works. Do it. The rest of you, keep on being negative and don't do it.
My opinion is that it while the THEORY of it all makes sense (that is, yes, you can inject hydrogen into an engine and make it run) the systems being proposed are, so far as I can tell, just another gas saving scam.
As for people's results, this can be explained as by a) placebo affect (that is, I can put a "gas saving device" on anyone's car and their mileage WILL go up a big---why? Because they will drive more carefully--so these are not dishonest people) and b) inaccurate calculating methods and c) reluctance to admit that there are no results.
Anyway, at the moment at least, this is what I think based on what I've researched.
No one, I repeat, NO ONE, has ever successfully demonstrated that these sytems you buy and build yourself for $80 bucks, works.
p.s. - I corresponded with an engine design engineer in England, and he confirmed that, while hydrogen under certain circumstances can slightly improve emissions and mileage, it would take a complete redesign of the engine to do it, including compression ratio, intake system, and computer control system, all rendering the engine incompatible with regular gasoline. Another example of nugget of truth having its meaning distorted beyond recognition.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
1. Scan and post the MPG of ten fill-ups recorded, with no HHO device
2. Scan and post the MPG of ten fill-ups recorded with HHO device, same vehicle, driving conditions
3. Scan and post the MPG of ten fill-ups once again with the HHO removed.
4. Install the same HHO device on one of two cars, owners unbeknownst to the installer, not revealing which has the HHO device. Seal the hoods shut
5. Run both cars for 1,000 miles and record MPG
6. Switch the HHO on the cars, again "blind" so neither driver knows who has it and who doesn't. Record MPG for 1,000 miles with sealed hoods.
If in all cases, there is a demonstrable increase in MPG with the HHO, vs. without, then I'd be convinced.
Until a test something like this, it's all blue sky to me.
And assuming someone actually did Shifty's Test (I think we should call it that...LOL) then we're talking about an industry changing product.
But once you shine the light of day on this kind of stuff, it tends to shrink back into the darkness. Check out this 2006 ABC news story on "gas pills" and "fuel line magnets".
1. "It doesnt' work on your car because you didn't build it properly"
This response popped up all over the Internet when "Myth Busters" tried it out and it didn't work
2. "The automakers and oil companies want to suppress it"
This one is really outlandish--as if an automaker wouldn't kill to have a car able to beat all competitors in MPG. As if oil companies wouldn't THRIVE on this---fact is, as gas gets cheaper, people drive more and use the same amount per year anyway.
3. "It doesn't work on all cars in the same way"
What's interesting about this argument is that you could say this same thing about every car it doesn't work on. In a sense, it is an unchallengeable argument.
4. "I tried it and it worked so it must be true"
Again, presuming there's no outright fraud going on, the argument is classically anecdotal, and confuses cause and effect with correlation. e.g. "I walked down the street and it rained", therefore I can make rain by walking down that street.
It also brings up the idea of Selective Validation, wherein we have the very human tendency to notice anything that re-inforces our belief and ignore anything that contradicts it. e.g., I consulted my horoscope today and it predicted something that happened. But what you didn't do was add up all the times it wasn't accurate on other days.
Yeah, that's a good one. My way around that is 'Fine, but what about all the other companies that would stand to make billions selling these as add-ons? And what about the major users (police, cab companies, truckers, FedEx, you name it) that would SAVE billions by buying them?'
I know I'm hitting too close to home when the response resorts to the 'they thought Orville and Wilbur were crazy too!'
1. They worked out some sounds scientific principles (that is, they didn't build a plane that flapped its wings or use an engine too heavy for the plane to lift)
2. They crashed a lot