HHO kits - Do they really work?

Mr_Shiftright

Yes but what you are missing is that the amount of hydrogen produced by these onboard mayonnaise jars is so miniscule that there are not enough BTUs in that amount of hydrogen to produce enough energy to affect the performance of an ICE.

You would need perhaps 1500 AMPS of power to generate enough hydrogen to boost a car's fuel economy by 40%.

That 16 gauge wire I see in the HHO kits could handle perhaps 30 amps before frying.

clecker

I'm new here but just have to reply, an internal combustion engine only has milliseconds to utilize the burn of fuel to achieve the effiency. and power. When you add even minuscule amouts of hydrogen to vaporized fuel, The hydrogen atoms more or less steal the carbon atoms from the mixture, which in turn creates a different fuel such as propane, methane, butane which all burn faster than conventional gas, thus increasing the flame spread which in turn gives more power and better effiency. The timing of the combustion is critical to achieve any results so most back yard mechanics can not achieve that. Todays engines are very hard to change any parameters programed into the ecu. To achieve any results they must be modified there are way to many checks and balances that the ecu. looks at to just install any kind of fuel improvement technique and have it stay for the long run. sorry for such a long post, but before any one judges anything should have some knowledge, and by the way the FTC lost!

texases

Please provide a link or something to substantiate your explanation. I have never heard of "hydrogen atoms more or less steal the carbon atoms from the mixture, which in turn creates a different fuel such as propane, methane, butane which all burn faster than conventional gas, thus increasing the flame spread which in turn gives more power and better effiency."

effee

People keep posting here-yeah, but maybe this, maybe that. If someone WANTS to believe something they're going to believe it regardless of any theories-or, more importantly, evidence to the contrary. I stated in my first post here that this is a monkey-brain idea that simply does not--can not-work. Theory does not support its being true, experience does not support its being true. I, personally, know people who have experimented with it trying everything possible to make it work using controlled scientific methods with no success. The world's auto manufacturers with millions of man-hours of research behind them have investigated every possible method of improving fuel economy-do not use any such devices on any of their vehicles. If that doesn't tell you anything about the validity of this idea then nothing, nothing s going to convince you that it doesn't work.

Mr_Shiftright

So why don't HHO generators work? Why do they all fail in testing?

Why is it that there's always "one more thing" that the testers or builders have failed to do?

The explanation you offer makes no sense to me. There is a finite amount of energy in a gallon of gasoline, a certain # of BTUs. Burning them faster just consumes the fuel faster. Aviation fuel burns really fast, if you want to blow the cylinder head off your car engine.

texases

You're right, of course Effee, I challenge every post just to make sure no-one takes it seriously. And I like reading the 'explanations'.

clecker

gasoline is a hydro carbon fuel with lots of carbon molecules to get any other gas take away a carbon molecule. Diesel fuel has more than gas thus the slow burn rate. How do they make gas take carbon molecules out.. let me put it this way does gas burn? no it doesn't the vapors do. that is where hydrogen atoms come into play. the more molecules of hydrogen introduced to a carbon fuel transforms it into a different molecular structure. it is actually a very basic chemistry formula. So the more carbon molecules you remove the more refined the fuel becomes. All i'm saying is when you introduce hydrogen molecules to a rich vaporized carbon enviroment, a diferent fuel is formed, To utilize that in an internal combustion engine the time has to be retarded, MOST ENGINES TODAY THE PISTONS OUTRUN THE COMBUSTION! So if you start the burn early which you can because of the size of the molecular sructure. What would happen an increase in power less emmisions because of a higher burn ratio.

clecker

I agree only so many btu's are in gasoline. Apparently you can't conceive that gasoline can be refined more. Why are there thousands of propane or natural gas vehicles on the road today? The only difference in there fuel are less carbon molecules. As far as aviation fuel goes high octane a more refined fuel = less carbon molecules Sure you would melt pistons without comepensating for the air mixture. The air fuel mixture is very important for performance or economy.

PF_Flyer

All well and good... but HHO doesn't and cannot work. It doesn't matter how many thought provoking questions are asked.

I wish that ONE HHO proponent would offer some kind of PROOF rather than talk in vague generalities that SOUND reasonable but have nothing more to do with the viability of a quart jar of water under your hood improving mileage than how tasty jelly donuts are.

texases

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that's how it works. Please supply some backup for your claims.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes hydrogen enhanced engines can run more efficiently---but here's the part that HHO people just won't digest:

It takes more fuel to create the hydrogen than the energy released by its burn.

I don't know how to say it any simpler.

clecker

You are right. Think of it as an accelerate then to propagate the burn. Does anyone here even know the combustion cycle of an internal engine, or the physics of how to acheive the most torque in the least amount of fuel. Seems to me that you all have your heads buried in the sand. What does higher octane gas do? burns faster and cleaner right? So if you look at the molecular structure of different grades of gas the fewer carbon molecules there are resulting in a higher burn ratio of air to gas mixture. HHO gas could not run a vehicle on it's own I never said it could. As far as using more power than it produces right again. But change the enviroment of its production into a compressed atmosphere with vaporized gas and oxgyen under pressure (engine) A major change in all of the components involved, Gasoline that is full of carbon molecules Hydrogen that wants those molecules and Oxgen than is needed to burn them put them under commpresion and WOW! The rule of thumb with a good dc hydrogen generator is 3 amps per liter of the engine. as i have posted before the problem is getting around the ecu

If anyone really cares to see the different molecule structucture of the different fuels which result when intruducing hydrogen search . (S)

texases

"What does higher octane gas do? burns faster and cleaner right? "

Sorry, exactly wrong. Higher octane gas is harder to ignite to prevent pre-ignition (knocking) in high-compression engines. It appears you have no legitimate sources for your claims. Also, hydrogen will not participate in some multi-step reaction in the presence of oxygen. It doesn't 'want' the carbon atoms more than it 'wants' oxygen. It'll just burn straight to H2O.

"As I have posted before"..."I'm new here but just have to reply" Hmmmm...how about some truth in advertising, clecker, or whoever you might be?

clecker

So sir, I am from pa. where the first oil was discovered in the US. and gasoline at that time was regarded as a waste fuel. get with the program we burn what the texas boys want us too. the internal combustion engine right now runs at the very most 20% effienect not because of the design but the fuel. I am not being sarcastic or anything here, Why would I have to support my statements, go look for yourself. Not for fuel savings but the principles of internal combustuion engines and the chemistry of the fuel used. as far as the high octane goes it might not ignite faster but when it does burn but woof it burns more than a lower octane because there are less carbon molecules. As far as a high commpression engine goes the knock is a caused by insuffienct fuel to air ratio, controlled by the ecu. If you want go check commpression on a (high) commpression engine and a normal engine. very little difference at the cylinder heads if any. the valve train and timing components may vary a little, The ECU determines what air fuel ration for that model. I'll talk turkey with you ifyou have a clue of what it is all about. In he mean time i would suggest a little research into the combustion properties of todays gasoline and how it reacts to pressure with air in an internal combustion engine.

Theres not much out there really, wonder why that is? No one wants anyone to know what it's all about would be my guess! Any carbon rich fuel can be broken down to different gaseous states. Just chemistry really!

PF_Flyer

No one wants anyone to know what it's all about would be my guess!

Yea, that's it. It's a plot to keep HHO a secret. No car company could possibly want the mileage of their cars improved right now. They have absolutley no reason to want that right?

Come on, you have to come up with something we haven't heard before... PROOF would be a nice change of pace

Mr_Shiftright

No, doesn't burn faster...perhaps less fast...but burns MORE EVENLY....a more even flame front is the whole idea of high octane gas.

texases

More of the same...
" the internal combustion engine right now runs at the very most 20% effienect not because of the design but the fuel."

Wrong again. The efficiency is a result of the compression ratio, nothing to do with the fuel. The other 80% (more like 75%) is lost as heat out the radiator and exhaust, and is another reason HHO doesn't work - it is a 4 to one losing proposition as far as energy goes.

"Why would I have to support my statements, go look for yourself."
So the maker of outlandish claims doesn't need to back them up. Right.

"as far as the high octane goes it might not ignite faster but when it does burn but woof it burns more than a lower octane because there are less carbon molecules. "
Precisely wrong again. Higher octane fuels have longer chain molecules, more carbon per hydrogen atoms.

"As far as a high commpression engine goes the knock is a caused by insuffienct fuel to air ratio, controlled by the ecu. If you want go check commpression on a (high) commpression engine and a normal engine. very little difference at the cylinder heads if any. the valve train and timing components may vary a little, The ECU determines what air fuel ration for that model."
Where do you get this stuff? Compression ratio is the cause of detonation, and it's manage to some extent by controlling the engine timing

" I'll talk turkey with you ifyou have a clue of what it is all about. In he mean time i would suggest a little research into the combustion properties of todays gasoline and how it reacts to pressure with air in an internal combustion engine. "
Truer instructions have never been given...to you.

qbrozen

"As far as a high commpression engine goes the knock is a caused by insuffienct fuel to air ratio, controlled by the ecu. If you want go check commpression on a (high) commpression engine and a normal engine. very little difference at the cylinder heads if any. the valve train and timing components may vary a little, The ECU determines what air fuel ration for that model."
Where do you get this stuff? Compression ratio is the cause of detonation, and it's manage to some extent by controlling the engine timing

Ya know, for a minute there, I was about to say you are both wrong, but then re-read texases statement and see what he meant. It was a bit confusing, though, so wanted to make it clearer.

"Detonation is caused by incompatible compression ratio and octane. The detonation can be managed to some extent via engine timing."

Its just the way it was written, I thought you mean detonation causes compression ratio and the compression ratio is managed via timing.

Mr_Shiftright

there are such things as variable ratio cylinder heads but I've only read about the concept, never seen one. Saab build some for experiment I believe.

Sure you can add a certain amount of hydrogen to improve engine efficiency, but this is done by a) generation of hydrogen from gasoline, not water and b) application of a lower compression ratio for the engine and c) addition of a turbocharger.

A few light years different than mayonnaise jars filled with tap water and tickled by a 12V car alternator.

texases

Lucky I don't claim writing as my best skill ...there was so much to comment on, so little time...

Mr_Shiftright

This topic reminds me of the "You Need To Cleanse the Toxins Out Of Your Body" advertisements.

It makes "sense" as an argument that yes, you feel bad because you have these poisons in your body and Product X will remove them, but in fact that's what your kidneys and liver do---and do extremely well. If they weren't working, you'd be dead.

so it all sounds great, but the science behind it--well, there is no science behind it. There are no "blockages in your colon" or "bits of trapped, hardened undigested matter" that some health drink will "unclog". If you had a blocked colon, you'd be (once again) dead pretty soon.

Do some people drink Dr. Shiftright's Magic Elixir and feel better? Yes, sometimes they do. Did the elixir "de-toxify" them?

No, of course not. It's all in their head, and Dr. Shiftright is either a crook or running on in a huge ego realm of delusion. And he's not a real "doctor" either. He has a PhD in history from Fairview Online University.

PF_Flyer

Maybe the people who need cleansing could use that patch that prevents hydrocarbon clumping in fuel lines :P

If it works for gas, it ought to work for your colon.

Mr_Shiftright

Have you ever noticed how many twists and turns your fuel lines take before gasoline gets to your injectors?

This could be costing you hundreds of dollars per year!

That's right. HUNDREDS.

Here's why:

Some of the carbon molecules in your gasoline actually get stuck in those bends!!

texases

"Some of the carbon molecules in your gasoline actually get stuck in those bends!! "

Lamborghini's solved that problem on their latest model: the Metamurcielago...sorry :P

Mr_Shiftright

a groaner....but FUNNY!

Did you know that for every gallon of gasoline you burn, you produce about a quart of water?

That's right!

The new Shiftright Oxy-Hydrolizer traps that water at the exit point of your muffler, ionizes the H and 02 molecules, then heats the ionized mixture into a vapor of highly charged particles and injects it by means of the Turbo-Pump (hooks up to your windshield washer reservoir) back into the intake manifold. This process HIGHLY OXYGENATES the fuel mixture and well as turbocharges it.

qbrozen

yes. I actually had that in my original reply before realizing my misinterpretation.

I also believe Benz has such technology in their Dies-Otto concept engine, don't they?

texases

Watch out, this sounds too good, you'll be quoted on the HHO web sites as a 'booster', a fellow inventor...

bunnell

I do not know how many of You read the popular mechanics hho test, but it is stated that Mikes friend is getting consistent improvement results in trucks pulling trailers. Mike seems to think that the 10%+ increase is achieved by fuel additives, fuel heaters, and "placebo" effects. It makes Me wonder how somebody gets a placebo to work on something mechanical. I think He is just trying to make an excuse because hho works and He knows it

qbrozen

It makes Me wonder how somebody gets a placebo to work on something mechanical.

Its easy when that mechanical device is completely dependent on human input. In other words, your right foot is far more influential on gas consumption than any additive.

bunnell

If that is the case, and I seriously doubt it, because every operator owner out there, is trying to get another 5% to 10% out of fuel costs. I gather, from your answer that you have never been a truck driver that paid for your own fuel.

qbrozen

??
You lost me.

If what is the case? That human input on the gas pedal makes a big difference? Do you really doubt that?

My father happens to be shop supervisor for a large fleet here on the east coast. The company, however, pays for the fuel, not the drivers. The measures he has taken to reduce fuel usage has lead to some pretty humorous stories. One method has been through programming the truck speed limiters. If you fall below a certain mpg threshold he has determined, you get your speed limit reduced. Some guys have no limits imposed at all and manage to stay above the threshold. Some, on the other hand, are now driving trucks that won't go above 55mph, and they are NOT happy about it, to say the least.

bunnell

Point taken, but if this mechanic is putting hho units on trucks and getting 10%+ increase CONSISTENTLY, it tells me that something besides the driving habits, fuel heaters and fuel additives is taking place. Did your father try swapping drivers out to different rigs? If he did, he probably ruffled some feathers. Try removing the restrictions, take the worst driver and the best driver, and swap rigs, loads and routes, and see what happens.

qbrozen

I asked about loads and routes and he did say the difference still occurs with 2 different drivers on similar routes/loads. I don't believe they ever swapped rigs, but I doubt that presents much of a difference. They run identical rigs. (the company purchases them in bulk)

But you aren't talking about rigs, are you? I'm pretty damned sure nobody is putting HHO on diesels. At least, they shouldn't be. The fuel systems are under such tremendous pressure ... well... I just don't see it working. Besides, don't HHO proponents claim it has to do with making GASOLINE burn "more efficiently"?

Mr_Shiftright

I think fuel heaters, driving habits and fuel additives more than explains a 10% gas mileage increase.

On a big truck, that's only about 1.5 miles per gallon improvement.

Heck, differences in the ambient temperature outside and the humidity ALONE could produce those results.

As for placebo effect, just ask any number of your friends if they think their cars run better after they are washed. You'll be surprised at the % who will say yes.

Along with placebo, we have "selective validation", a trick of the mind wherein all POSITIVE results that re-inforce a belief are noted, and all NEGATIVE results are ignored.

So, with your HHO generator in place, if you calculate MPG on Tankful A and it's 10% better, that's because of HHO; if you calculate the next MPG on Tankful B, and it's MINUS 10%, that was due to traffic, bad gas, etc.

bunnell

Yes, I am talking about big rigs. There are 2 owner operators here in my home town using it now

Mr_Shiftright

And will THEY let someone test their results or come on line and prove their results?

bunnell

10% is only about 1.5 mpg means that particula rig gets a standard 15 mpg. I know a few truckers and I would like to know who makes that rig so I can tell them

qbrozen

I would like to see all kinds of info on those rigs. Would like to know how its hooked up, etc.

I mean, N/A gas engines are one thing ... I'm curious as to all the details when dealing with turbocharged diesels with fuel being injected at 35,000 psi. Are they just feeding it through the air intake? At what point? Oh, and let's not forget the biggest obstacle: the intense heat and significantly higher compression ratio! How is the hydrogen kept from pre-igniting?

Mr_Shiftright

Hmmm...I wonder why the Peterbilt company spend millions of dollars developing its "Comfort System" technology to improve gas mileage 8 percent on its big rigs when they could have just hooked up some mayonnaise jars, a gallon of water and some 16 gauge bell wire?

Why do you think they wasted all that time and money?

bunnell

qbrozen! The only deisel engine that I know of that it will not work on is the ford powerstroke that has the pre combustion chamber. Shiftright! The best mileage for any rig is, maybe 10, and usually less than 9

Mr_Shiftright

Well the actual MPG is irrelevant. The claim of 10% improvement is what we are talking about. 10% of WHAT, doesn't matter, right?

Yes Peterbilt spent millions of dollars to get their rigs up to about 8 mpg from about 7.

PF_Flyer

10% is nothing when the 80mpg car has been created! THAT's the claim I want to see proof of, though I doubt we'll get anything but questions about why we doubt the claim.

Mr_Shiftright

I could get 10% better mileage out of just about any car you gave me and I wouldn't have to spend a penny on it. But I can't pass that savings on to you necessarily. It's about how one drives.

qbrozen

Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I doubt it. With the heat and high compression, I have to believe that the hydrogen would ignite sometime prior to the piston hitting top dead center, which is, of course, preignition, and damaging to the vehicle, possible even catastrophic.

PF_Flyer

Careful now... you're starting to let facts creep into your thinking and that causes a lot of negative vibrations. That's the kind of thinking that keeps HHO from working :P

Mr_Shiftright

An ICE has to be *built* to burn hydrogen. The reason the HHO generators don't damage anything is because the amount of hydrogen generated couldn't blow up a mouse.

bunnell

Somewhere back a few pages, I made references to a nasa study that says different. I put the title in the message so anybody who wants to can check it out

Mr_Shiftright

did you miss the part about lowering compression and also turbocharging the engine?

qbrozen

I agree the amount of hydrogen burning is too low to blow up much of anything ... BUT, what happens if that small amount of preignited hydrogen ignites the fuel being shot into the cylinder? (!!)

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think the hydrogen even gets to the cylinder with this contraption. Remember, the hydrogen molecule is tiny tiny tiny....it probably would leak right through most rubber hose or plastic tubing.