HHO kits - Do they really work?

bunnell

I guess Plato said it best when He said that which ever way a persons education starts him, is what determines his future beliefs. I dont rip people off. If they want to try something, they can. If not, well that is ok too. It is up to them. I do not sell any thing. Believing something or knowledge of something cannot be sold. Not believing in something is Your privilege. I will go ahead and enjoy the dollars saved and enjoy the facts as I see them.

texases

" I will go ahead and enjoy the dollars saved and enjoy the facts as I see them. "

Great line...there are facts, and there are facts as you see them. You can believe whatever you like, but when there are no facts (those being observations made and documented by unbiased individuals) supporting your position, then I don't think Plato would lose sleep over it.

Here's an example of the lengths to which the hope of HHO working will drive people: An individual posted a question on "Ask the Community" about how hard it would be to replace the perfectly good fuel injection system on his vehicle with a caburetor, because HHO was showing losses in mpgs on his fuel injected system (imagine that!), and he was sure it was the computer messing things up. Just put in an old fashioned carb, and THEN HHO woould work...sure.... :confuse: :sick:

bunnell

I dont claim to know why it works. The only thing I can figure out, is the extremely rapid dispersion of the hydrogen, and the rapid burning of this same gas, somehow acts as a catylist to help gasoline burn faster and more completely. I do know that gasoline engines and diesel engines are not effectively burning the fuel used. Especially gasoline. Federal mandates for smog devises should tell anybody with common sense that little fact. I have not torn an engine down yet, but did find out that the spark plugs are cleaner when removed to change them and the oil is not as dirty when changed. Hho is a unique burning combination. I dont think that combination of burning properties has ever been calculated. It would be interesting to know just how effective it really is.

texases

" I do know that gasoline engines and diesel engines are not effectively burning the fuel used. Especially gasoline. Federal mandates for smog devises should tell anybody with common sense that little fact."

That's a "fact"? Sorry, wrong. Modern gasoline and diesel engines are VERY effective at burning over 95% of the fuel to completion (H2O and CO2). Only the very small amount of incompletely burned fuel is the target of all our pollution controls. Another "fact" bites the dust...

Mr_Shiftright

The problem with this "belief" in HHO is that it's impossible. So basically we are being asked to believe in the supernatural. And worse yet, we are being asked to excuse the believers from any proof whatsoever of the supernatural, because of the sincerity of their beliefs.

This seems more like a religious type of experience rather than tinkering with cars.

bunnell

Modern engines are more efficient? Perhaps You can explain that so I can understand that. I live in a farming community and I dont see it. Modern farming equipt. with comparable sized engines still use as much or more fuel as the older carbed engines. 18 wheelers still get the same or less mpg than they did 30 years ago. If engines are so much more efficient, why are the smog devices on them? What is the purpose of putting equipment on them that cuts this so called improvement? Why not just put in a system that tells You when to tune up and get an emissions test. If not done in a reasonable time and manner, it no longer runs until reset by an authorized mechanic. If tampered with. the system would have to be replaced before it will run. Keeps things clean tuned and running right.

Mr_Shiftright

A modern Corvette gets 26 mpg and goes 180 mph. There is no 30 year old V-8 pushrod car that's going to do that. Computer technology gives you not only a cleaner engine but a far more fuel efficient one. I really don't think John Deere or Peterbilt is at the cutting edge of modern passenger car technology. A Peterbilt engine is as tall as a man and has pistons the size of garbage can lids. It's not really designed for fuel economy. It's designed to haul extremely heavy loads.

bunnell

I had a 1968 buick wildcat convertible that was got 22-23 mpg cruising at 70 mph. that car weighed 4200 lbs and had a 430 ci engine. I got a lot less mileage at 120mph, and I imagine the vette does too. I doubt that the vette weighs more than half of that. My brother had a 69 superbee with close to the same mileage and woluld 150+. His engine was a 383 magnum and would leave mine in the dust

bunnell

I see a lot of difference in rpms and gearing, but not what is burned inside the engine. What would emissions tests show if all this modern "smog" equipment wasnt present on a modern engine. Test that out and let me know

texases

Tests show that engines burn over 95% of the gasoline you put in. And this was for a 1945 radial aircraft engine. Add computer controlled fuel injection and efficiency can only rise. Of course, more than 2/3 of that energy is lost as heat out the exaust and radiator. HHO cannot change that. Pollution controls eliminate the VERY small amount of unburned hydrocarbons, CO, etc.

Mr_Shiftright

Your '68 Wildcat would have had the same emissions as about 60 modern cars.

After we test the HHO kit, can we test the gas mileage on a '68 Wildcat?

bunnell

Some one is barking up the wrong tree here. Economy and efficiency are directly related. I did some research. The gasoline engine is only at most 30% effective in using the energy in the fuel used. Diesel engines are 45% efficient. Additives reduce that efficiency. I find no research on the properties of hho. I found very little published research on h2. By NASA accounts, it is quite a booster. Any vehicle using a gallon of gas in a certain distance, puts the same amount of pollutants into the atmosphere, unless it stores it somewhere else. I dont buy these governmert mandates. Burn a gallon of gas in a 1968 buick,or a 2009 ford, or whatever. Same pollutants and the same amount of pollutants.

texases

"The gasoline engine is only at most 30% effective in using the energy in the fuel used. Diesel engines are 45% efficient"

This is the starting point for all the incorrect information about HHO. These values are the amount of mechanical energy each engine produces for a given amount of gasoline (or HHO, for that matter) or diesel fuel burnt. So a gasoline engine produces 30% of the fuel's energy as mechanical energy at the driveshaft. Of the remaining 70% of the gasoline's energy, 65% is lost as heat, either out the (hot) exaust pipe or the (hot) radiator. At most 5% of the energy is lost as incompletely burned gasoline (CO and hydrocarbons). Got it?

bunnell

That makes some sense, but You forgot that about 45% of the gas is burned during the exhaust stroke. that is why the timing must be advanced in the engine. If not, the gas explosion is following the power stroke,and gasoline does not burn fast enough to catch it. In the perfect fuel, (not developed yet), the explosion shuold be at TDC, and be depleted by the time the piston reaches the bottom of the stroke. Gasoline doesnt burn fast enough. Hho does, and I think it helps to speed up the gas burn. You did not address the fact that 2 cars, using the same amount of fuel by going the same distance are putting the same pollutants into the atmosphere.

Mr_Shiftright

NASA is using pressurized liquid hydrogen, which is a far far cry from the wimpy few molecules of free hydrogen you might be generating in 12V electrolysis. Atom bomb vs. BB gun.

Well I must say you don't let scientific facts get in the way of your belief system. Facts bounce off your argument like rocks off an Abrams tank. :P

bunnell

Granted, but NASA also did a couple of experiments with ice's and showed improvement. I still dont see any explanation on 2 cars and that gallon of gasoline that each of them burn. the emissions have to be the same, unless the new car is storing them somehow. Maybe I dont let explanations get in the way of facts. Maybe it is the other way around. Maybe I just dont let My education, or lack of it get to the point where I cant go around it. Maybe I want to know where all the emissions go that supposedly dont get put back into the air we breath. Maybe I am right. If it isnt tried, it isnt known to the one that didnt try, and give it the best shot. Seems funny that this country was built on ideas that were different,and now we forgot those lessons

qbrozen

Maybe I just dont let My education, or lack of it get to the point where I cant go around it. ...Maybe I am right. If it isnt tried, it isnt known to the one that didnt try, and give it the best shot. Seems funny that this country was built on ideas that were different,and now we forgot those lessons

Huh. And here I've been letting my education and simple physics tell me I can't climb to my roof naked and fly away when all I should do is try to find out for myself.

Mr_Shiftright

Well first of all the reasons your '68 Wildcat puts out 60 times the emissions of a 2009 Honda are:

1. The Wildcat uses 3X the gas to go the same distance as the Honda

2. The Honda's emissions (even at 1/3rd the dose) are chemically changed by the catalytic converter.

In fact, some new cars are so good in eliminating emissions, that the air coming to the air filter from the atmosphere can be dirtier than the air going out the tailpipe.

Actually you're right--at times this country was built on fraud, that's true. :P

PF_Flyer

...at times this country was built on fraud, that's true

But it's one thing the get taken in by something and another to keep running headlong into it WANTING to believe. Sort of like insisting that you COULD make a fortune by replying to that Nigerian email scam if only you'd put aside your silly caution. Dub Schwartz pops a couple of balloons at once today on the Alternate Route :P

bunnell

I just went through 274 messages here. Most people are in favor of hho and agree that it works. There are a few that are genuinely curious. There are a few that are very opposed. In fact, they are so opposed that any curious, or proponents of hho soon get discouraged and stop coming here. That doesnt allow a very effective discussion to be held. Some have even called names and twisted words around. Questions are not answered without sarcasm or bias. I am also guilty and I apologize. Enough said.

Mr_Shiftright

It really doesn't matter how many people think something is true. Most of the world thought the earth was flat for thousands of years, but they weren't right either.

However, the flat-earthers had a good excuse. There was no science to help them. But people who want to know if HHO kits work or not have plenty of good science to assist them in coming to the right conclusion.

They don't work because they can't possibly. You can't generate enough hydrogen, nor can you use the minuscule amounts you do generate. There's not enough energy in that little jar to light a match, much less propel an engine.

Okay then, tell us why this guy is wrong:

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/hho_scam.shtml

texases

"Most people are in favor of hho and agree that it works."

The majority of HHO boosters here are salesmen, wanting to convince folks they should spend their hard-earned money on something that has never been shown to work by an objective organization. I don't believe a group of salesmen, even if they outnumber me.

P.S.
Thanks for that web site, Shifty, it summarizes lots of points that folks need to know.

Mr_Shiftright

Having researched the question, I feel somewhat of an obligation to warn consumers not to buy an HHO kit, as it is a complete waste of money. I wasn't sure about this a month ago, but I've investigated it and talked to engineers, and now I feel confident in my position on the subject. I don't speak for Edmunds, just for myself.

bunnell

I can only tell You what I know. The million dollar challenge is a scam. Installing hho is a visible alteration to the engine, automatically disqualifying it for emission testing. I am not scamming anybody by selling something that doesnt work.. I have actually given several of My units to people, and helped to install them. One person complained that it quit working after a week. She never added water, and it quit operating. Everyone I gave these to knows they will not work if frozen. I do not know why they work, but I do have a theory. The added h2 and o2 are a very unique combustible mixture. H2 disburses very quickly thruoghout the atmosphere in the cylinder. H2 will burn when there is only 4% o2 in the air surrounding it. H2 burns very rapidly. I think it helps ignite the gasoline inside the cylinder,due to the rapid disbursing and its extremely rapid ignition rate. Normally, there would be no free h2 inside the combustion chamber. The hindenburg gave us an example of how fast h2 will burn. It did not explode. You say it is impossible. I say it works. Lets just agree to disagree, and to not be sarcastic about it

texases

Thanks, now we know that you are also a salesman.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm sorry but there's really no argument here anymore. As described, it cannot work and that's about it. The numbers don't add up.

You can't throw a baseball into orbit either, because the numbers don't work. Your car's alternator does not have the power to generate any significant amount of hydrogen, and certainly not enough to double your gas mileage!

In other words, with your device you use more energy than you gain. That's another way of saying it doesn't work.

qbrozen

Most people are in favor of hho and agree that it works. There are a few that are genuinely curious. There are a few that are very opposed. In fact, they are so opposed that any curious, or proponents of hho soon get discouraged and stop coming here.

They stop coming here because they can never answer the questions put to them. All the scientific evidence points to such a device not working, and this evidence has been put on the table time and again. Much like you are doing, every request to provide evidence to the contrary is answered with "It works because I said so."

Mr_Shiftright

Even the "inventor" is waffling so as to stay out of jail I guess---now the story is "well, it works IN CONJUNCTION with other devices and adjustments...that's why it didn't work for you".

So yeah, you want to run lean as all hell and bump your timing radically to gain a few MPG, be my guest.

effee

Let's just clear up this hho thing now and forever. IT DOES NOT WORK!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that plain enough?
The energy density of hydrogen is VERY low compared to hydrocarbon fuels. The amount of usable energy in a 10,000--that's ten thousand-gallon propane storage tank filled with hydrogen at standard pressure is equivalent to the energy in about 45 gallons of gasoline. Do you really imagine the tiny wisp of hydrogen and oxygen fed into your engine from an hho bubbler is going to make a difference? Sure the hho will be burned along with yhe gasoline, but it's not going to make any significant difference in your gas mileage.

brian76

like the man said... lots of sarcasm here. mostly from "hosts" Too bad. I enjoyed gleaning knowledge from those who have tried to make these things and had some success. I haven't seen many posters selling anything here. a few, yes, but labeling everyone who claims to have seen it work a scammer just ain't right. I've seen it work. That doesn't mean I'm selling anything or that I'm stupid or that I'm a liar.
how 'bout showing some respect to your fellow man. Verbally beating up on anyone who doesn't agree w/you as a means of improving your self esteem is childish.

texases

No sarcasm here, we're very serious. I'm always serious when I see people being asked to waste money. Skepticism? Yes, in bucket loads, and for good reason. And I don't beat up on people, I beat up on unproven assertions with no factual backup.

PF_Flyer

Well at least as much as I could scrape up. :P

All I need is one, just ONE, HHO proponent to step into the light and PROVE that their idea actually works. We keep seeing these claims of up to 50% gains in mileage, or that someone did it for $38.

That's all we skeptics need. No $5000 "challenges". No addtional conditions like "you need to make this modification to make the HHO kit actually work".

One simple, verifiable demonstration that can be repeated will be all it will take.

But until then, you can bet that claims that this nonsense actually works will be met with the same skepticism as today's press release on the Bio-EnerChi Fuel Patch

Boy, I bet that "eliminating hydrocarbon clumping" will make HHO obsolete!

Mr_Shiftright

What did you see exactly Brian?

PF_Flyer

Inquiring minds want to know. And what you saw, is it something you measured, or you were just told the results?

PF_Flyer

Little did I realize how funny the gas patch scam was going to be. You have to read the whole thing to enjoy it for yourself, but line like this are priceless...

This is not like the magnets of the past. This patch uses energy to stick to the pump. It is not the same as, or even similar to, a magnet. The two use completely different types of technology.

Ooo... it uses ENERGY to stick to the pump. :P

Now according to the logic, I'm supposed to believe that because they said it, right?

texases

That was a good one - I have visions of re-labeled nicotine patches, or maybe they're taping some spent uranium to the tank!

bunnell

Look up and read a NASA document entitled "emissions and total energy consumption of a multicylinder piston engine running on gasoline and a hydrogen-gasoline mixture

texases

Ah, the Holy Grail of HHO fans, the 1977 NASA paper about adding hydrogen to a 1969 Cadillac V8. Sorry, first it's out of date by 30 years, second, it says nothing about fuel economy. Using 1969 technology, it does indicate some possible emissions reduction. But what EVERY HHO booster ignores is the amount of hydrogen used in the study: 1.4 pounds per hour, equal to 12.6 pounds/hour of water! That's about 1.5 gallons of water per hour! No HHO system can use even a tiny fraction of that amount of water. Again, grabbing some unrelated facts for unwarrented support.

Mr_Shiftright

I think you still aren't understanding this -- you'll need a small hydroelectrical dam to generate enough power to generate enough hydrogen to run your car's engine. Your device can't possibly generate enough BTU's to warm a mouse's toe much less propel a V-8 engine.

maserati84

Re: pappysway artical, It is a nicely writen technical paper, not to mention very informative. Living in Nova Scotia, Canada - our temp range in winter varies from
(+)8 Degrees C to (-)15 every 4-5 days. I currently drive a 2000 GMC 5.3Lt Z71 pick up truck.

Question:
1. I am very interested in any technical wireing diagrams and info for the HHO
installation, and any engine tune up modes required.
2. With our Canadian temp's, other then using a coffee cup warmer for the HHO
unite, does anyone know of other links or suggestions.

rgds / your neighbour to the north

bunnell

You are correct. I cannot produce that much h2. I dont have to. Compare the volume of air being drawn into a 7.4 liter engine at 2140 rpms to the volume of air .drawn into a 2.8 liter engine at 2000 rpms. Reread the document, pull out some specifics on the test using .59 lbs hydrogen per hour and leaner gas mixtures. Flame speed +61%. Heat energy loss to exhaust -37%. Heat energy loss to cooling system is less but not calculated. 1 lb h2 =19.85 liters. that is a small percentage of the air used up by the engine. Then You add the factor that o2 is 8 times that volume. I am sure You know the reaction of gasoline in a very slightly o2 enriched atmosphere is. That part isnt addressed in any hho websites or tests that I have seen

Mr_Shiftright

Oh yes you do. The laws of the universe say you do indeed need a certain quantity of hydrogen to produce a certain quantity of energy.

Is HHO alien technology or am I missing something else here?

bunnell

Oh, where is that written? Actually I kind of wonder what would happen if You just added extra oxygen into the cylinders. No hydrogen involved

Mr_Shiftright

Well it's written in all the posts, mathematics, and links we've been providing you for the past couple of weeks. It's up to you to read it and understand it.

Adding extra oxygen is basically what turbocharging and supercharging do--of course, that's in vast amounts of air (as it's neither pure oxygen nor it is atmospheric) , under pressurized boost, and includes other systems such as intercooling, lowered compression ratios and computerized engine timing management---all in order to protect the engine.

If you mean just opening the engine up to atmospheric "air" by drilling a hole in the intake manifold after the throttle plate, then all you get is a rough running engine and a very lean mixture. You might recall how horribly early emission regulated cars ran with "air pumps", back when they didn't know what they were doing.

If you mean injecting pure oxygen into your cylinders---ah, I wouldn't do that.

bunnell

I seem to have made an error in wording about the 400% in volume of o2 yesterday. Should have been weight. I am glad nobody caught it. Tell Me what laws of thermodynamics and/or physics have control over the energy used to make a catalyst and/or how much energy that catalyst will add or detract when used. Some of them seem to disregard any known thermodynamic rules, until the physical properties are known of the reactions. I know that making hho from water takes energy. I know that burning hho makes water. I know that a 12 volt battery when shorted across will not vaporize tungsten. I know flame from a torch using hho will and the torch tip will not melt. That seems to defy those laws of thermodynamics that everybody is so fond of throwing around. Hho combined with gasoline should run hotter because it burns hotter. The engine seems to run cooler. In fact,NASA testing shows a hotter faster flame that somehow loses less heat energy. Explain, please. Dont talk about superheated steam either. I retired from the navy as a maintenance tech.

bunnell

I forgot to ask You if You ever tried this. If so, did You build it yourself, or are You like the popular mechanics guy. Even He stated that there might be something to hho after all. Only more testing will tell. If You havent tried it, You will always have that little question in the back of your mind. It seems that no one is absolutely sure unless they try it for themselves. I heard My dad talk about it when I was a kid. Always wondered, but waited til I retired to experiment. Kind of had an added incentive, too. I didnt want to pay for all that gas I was using. Never sold one, but have given a lot of them away to family and friends. Yes I still play with new ideas trying to make a better one. I guess I enjoy it.

PF_Flyer

You like the popular mechanics guy. Even He stated that there might be something to hho after all.

I'm not sure what Popular Mechanics article you read, but he didn't say there might be something to HHO. After testing the HHO kit he said:

"Before you HHO proponents start bombarding me with hate mail, chill. You may have some amazing anecdotal evidence that these systems work. But I'm not swayed by over-the-road proof unless the conditions are constant—the variables are too, well, variable. And that includes my own testing. There's too much noise in the data collection, statistically speaking, and quite a bit of room for experimenter bias. From considerable experience with other gas savers, I know even the subtlest change in driving habits can influence the results. I won't be convinced of any fuel savings until I see results on a dynamometer, where I can control everything except the HHO."

He also flat out stated: My fuel economy is exactly the same, whether the HHO generator is turned on or not.

He also spoke for an hour with an HHO guy who gave him the (what a suprise) news that "HHO injection is only an enabler for other devices and changes."

So we're back again to someone, ANYONE, who claims that these things work actually proving they work and not just syaing that they do. You can cite references to NASA reports and try to dazzle us with all the pseudo-science that you care to toss around. You can twist an article that show NO results from a fair and honest testing of an HHO into somehow saying "there might be something to it". It all means nothing until you demonstrate that it works.

Popular Mechanics is a reputable source. They gave it a go, and zero, zip, nada.

It doesn't work, and it really doesn't matter how many people want to think it does, that doesn't make it so, no matter how forthright and honest their belief is.

If there's more testing to be done, it needs to be done by those who are trying to show that it works, because they haven't shown that it does... and to leave you a small smidgen of hope... yet.

Mr_Shiftright

No I haven't because I am dead certain it is scientifically impossible....HOWEVER, if you want to send me the plans, I'll build one and install it in my car, under one condition. When it doesn't work you can't say "oh, you didn't build it right". I know how to build things.

For my part I will be very careful in my testing. If my gas mileage goes way up, I'll report it faithfully and eat my words.

ADDENDUM: I am NOT going to manipulate my engine's timing or lean out the mixture in any fashion. I just finished taking that motor apart, thank you very much.

PS: This has nothing to do with Edmunds. This is my personal exploration.

PPS: I'm not going to buy the plans, because I'm not going to contribute to the hokum.

So it's either free or forget it.

bunnell

You are absolutely right . If more testing is done, it should be done by those trying to show it works, instead of the people who are biased against it. Its a shame that some of us are so biased in our opinions about what can or cannot be done, that another opinion does NOT matter. Thats ok . You believe what You want. I will say that a consistant 10% increase in diesels pulling trailers is not placebo, or done just by leaning the fuel. If that were possible, California, and thousands of truckers would have been doing that years ago. Additives in the fuel; maybe, but I find myself doubtful. Fuel heaters are being used and have for a while. Even gasoline engines had a fuel heater under the carbs for a while. Ran a hose from the water pump to a block on the intake, and through to the heater core. Open minds, are the only way that technology can be improved upon, or even developed in the first place. Frankly, I still believe in the miracle of technology. I am still alive and reasonably healthy because of 2 little miracles called stents in My heart. Maybe that is what gave Me a new outlook on what I believe
,

Mr_Shiftright

If the stent in your heart had the technology of an HHO kit behind it, you'd be dead, believe me.

My "opinion" doesn't affect the results of an experiment unless I deliberately lie about it. I have nothing to protect. I'd like to perform this HHO miracle and defy all laws of science. I'm up for it. :P

If your argument is that "it won't work because you don't believe it" then you've really sort of blown up your whole case IMO.