**UPDATED** HHO GAS....

[Ecomike]

I have decided to build one of these, but it may be a month before I get around to playing with one, so in case anyone else wants to try my idea, I get my graphite plates as scrap on line from a company called POCO Graphite. I have been using their pressed graphite plates as electrodes in some battery patent experiments here, and they hold up nicely to overvoltage, acid and bases, organics and electrolysis.

Also, the titanium might be found in a local scrap metal yard. Electroplaters frequently use titanium electrodes in their plating tanks, so a google search might find them online under plating racks and hooks. Lastly, the electrodes, especially if titanium is used, do not need to be any thicker than 1/16" or 10 Gauge. Graphite is brittle, so I would use about 1/8" or thicker with graphite, but it is light weight.

 

[PuddinHead]

:conceited I think this is important. Assuming that the addition of Hydrogen to the air intake improves MPG then why not make the stuff at home??? House current is less expensive to use than loading down your car's alternator and sucking down more gas. Couldn't a set up at work more efficiently? The hydrogen could be pumped from the accumulation chamber as its made. Maybe a water float could turn a vacuum pump on/off as needed. The hydrogen would go into a container like a NOX bottle. Assuming safety concerns were addressed, and the equipment didn't cost too much, THIS COULD BE THE WAY TO GO. Just thinking out-loud.

 

[RyleyF]

HHO is a scam for people that failed science.

 

[ChrisTX]

HHO is a scam for people that failed science.

:roflmao: Nice.

 

[mattbred]

HHO is a scam for people that failed science.

Is your Jeep's dipstick yellow?

Does it have speed and class?

 

[goodburbon]

HHO is a scam for people that failed science.

I think so too, so I'm making one because no one believes me.

Eco, I am using stainless plates. A trip to the hardware store yielded some stainless Junction box covers and I built the unit this morning.

I'm trying a bit of a different setup. I am using 3 of those plates, the center one is grounded and the outer two are run in parallel on the hot side. I'm using rubber fuel line as a spacer at the bottom and a section of packing styrofoam across the top to hold the spacing even and to keep the electrode centered in the PVC Housing. I'll see if this works.

 

[Stallacrew]

I just got a decent amount of titanium stock off the ebay, so I'll see how it does since it was the material of choice. Should be in soon, have to take it home to machine some slices off though. Not really sure what kind of method to use; band saw (maybe not), lathe, cut off wheel....I've never used the stuff before.

 

[lawsoncl]

HHO is a scam for people that failed science.

If your assumption is that HHO is just displacing gasoline as the burned fuel with no other effects happening, then you'd be correct. In that oversimplified assumption you would indeed be throwing away energy as heat at the 85% efficient alternator and the 60% efficient HHO generator. However something more seems to be happening. This thread is an attempt at a civil discussion of how and why people are seeing better mpg. If you don't have anything other than snide comments please shut up.

So lets throw some ballpark numbers out there. At a 60 mph crusing speed, an engine output of 25 Hp would be reasonable. Figuring 10-15% powertrain loss, that's maybe 22 hp to the ground). I used http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~allan/fluids/page8/power/power.html as a reference with the default values.

Lets also assume you're pumping 10 amps at 12 volts into the HHO generator. Figuring 85% efficiency at the alternator, that translates into an additional 0.2 HP demand on the engine output. That's an increase on the engine load of about 2% - about the same as turning on the headlights. So the actual cost of running the HHO generator isn't really that much. For this setup to produce an improvement, the added HHO gas needs to increase the engine efficiency by only 2% (which could be from an average 25% to 25.5% gas-> mechanical engine efficiency)

I can see where adding HHO might improve the combustion a little, maybe even enough to more than break even. I am still having difficulty with the notion that it's improving engine combustion efficiency by 10-15% as some are reporting. Those kinds of changes demand either compression ratio changes, valve timing changes, or running a lot leaner. Perhaps there is some other explanation such as influencing the O2 sensor to read differently.

Has anyone determined the actual gas output rates of their HHO generators? I'm curious how it compares, volume-wise, to the cfm of air and quantity of fuel used per minute as 60 mph?

Again ballparking 20 mpg and 60 mph thats 3 gallons of gasoline an hour or about 5750 BTU/minute. Guessing a VE of 0.8, 232 cubic inch displacement, and 2200 rpm means sucking 118 cfm of air. Uncompressed H2 has an energy content of 319 BTU/ft3. Taking the 120 watts above and ballparking an electrolysis efficiency of 60% thats 245 BTU/minute or around 0.78 cfm. That seems really small compared to the 118 cfm of air flowing through the engine.

 

[lawsoncl]

I just got a decent amount of titanium stock off the ebay, so I'll see how it does since it was the material of choice. Should be in soon, have to take it home to machine some slices off though. Not really sure what kind of method to use; band saw (maybe not), lathe, cut off wheel....I've never used the stuff before.

I'd say use what ever has the roughest cut to improve surface area. I wonder if you can build something that's a spiral of metals with a separater - kind of how capacitors and spiral would batteries are manufactered. That would maximize surface area.

 

[hightime81]

hi all, to get a true of a test as possible, i am going to run my tank dry. when i get close to running out i will stick a gallon gas tank in the back to get me to the local gas station.

i have to do a double check to see how many gallons my fuel tank holds, but i believe it is around 15 right?

then i can simply compare that to the tripometer. thoughts on the constraints i have set up?

 

[RyleyF]

Is your Jeep's dipstick yellow?

Does it have speed and class?

hahahaha, well i'm putting a new 4.0 in my Jeep right now and it had a yellow dipstick but the engine fell over in the truck and broke it off. I'm so pissed right now, there's 5 HP I can never get back. It does have a red oil filler cap though, i might put an AMSOIL sticker on it.

 

[WB9YZU]

hi all, to get a true of a test as possible, i am going to run my tank dry. when i get close to running out i will stick a gallon gas tank in the back to get me to the local gas station.

i have to do a double check to see how many gallons my fuel tank holds, but i believe it is around 15 right?

then i can simply compare that to the tripometer. thoughts on the constraints i have set up?

Don't do that.

Use the tried and true average MPG methode. Pick a station close to home, and a pump. fill your tank and let the trip odometer record the miles. When you get low on fuel, return to the same station and pump, and fill up. Make sure you drive the same way, and do the same kind of driving (city vs hwy). Record the gallons used, miles traveled, and the type of driving in a notebook. do that for a month.

Now do the same exact thing with your HHO generator.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is no miracle science here lawsoncl. There is no free ride in physics. Energy into a system = the energy out of a system. You never get more energy out of a system than you put in. The perpetual motion machine has not been invented, so I assume that basic fundimental of physics has not changed. I have noticed that a number of these systems require that you trick your computer into leaning your mixture even further than the computer will when running HHO. Running leaner than the optimum A/F ratio will certainly affect MPGs, but is hard on engine's top end.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This thread should go dead until someone has actually done a before and after test with one of these in their vehicle.

 

[mattbred]

This thread should go dead until someone has actually done a before and after test with one of these in their vehicle.

Be nice if they could show some before and after O2 data as well. My hunch is it's just making it run lean, and on the newer models it might throw a code so let us know what that code is. I'm guessing an O2 related code or a vacuum leak or some such.

 

[Ecomike]

I think so too, so I'm making one because no one believes me.

Eco, I am using stainless plates. A trip to the hardware store yielded some stainless Junction box covers and I built the unit this morning.

I'm trying a bit of a different setup. I am using 3 of those plates, the center one is grounded and the outer two are run in parallel on the hot side. I'm using rubber fuel line as a spacer at the bottom and a section of packing styrofoam across the top to hold the spacing even and to keep the electrode centered in the PVC Housing. I'll see if this works.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Ecomike]

hi all, to get a true of a test as possible, i am going to run my tank dry. when i get close to running out i will stick a gallon gas tank in the back to get me to the local gas station.

i have to do a double check to see how many gallons my fuel tank holds, but i believe it is around 15 right?

then i can simply compare that to the tripometer. thoughts on the constraints i have set up?

Running the gas tank empty is never a good idea, it can ruin the fuel pump, damage it, and it won't make your mileage data any better, as the tank never really runs completely dry, and never gets totally filled up. You willl just have to do a long term mileage study using avergae mileage comparisons, unless you rug up a special gas tank to testing, where the gas tank is small and can be filled from a true empty to a true full level. Perhaps a twin gas tank that only holds 2 gallons, but your talking some dollars for all that stuff to do it right?

Another option, but a bit costly too is to use an inline totalizer meter that precisely measures fuel consumption, but the fuel rail design would not make that easy either.

I have been told that our jeep tanks are either 13 or 20 gallons. I have never gotten more than 18 gallons in my 20 gallon tank, but I never ran it completely dry either.

 

[insanity]

I mesure my avrage by reseting my trip meter when I fill up. Then I drive untill I need gas again then take the miles I drove and devide it by the gallons I put in. Repeat this over a month and you will get a good avrage. Also you need to fill up the same way every time, eather fill untill the pump kicks off and leave it at that or squease as much in almost to the point of it spilling out, which way you chose it needs to be consistanat.

 

[Ecomike]

There is no miracle science here lawsoncl. There is no free ride in physics. Energy into a system = the energy out of a system.

Just a bit curious where you found that equation? Looks to me like it is missing the accumulation terms and work terms and even then its not really right.

Energy into a system actually = energy into the system (less any losses along the way)

Like if I charge a battery the energy I stored in the battery is in the battery, not outside of the system (battery) as your equation above implies.

 

[lawsoncl]

There is no miracle science here lawsoncl. There is no free ride in physics. Energy into a system = the energy out of a system. You never get more energy out of a system than you put in. The perpetual motion machine has not been invented, so I assume that basic fundimental of physics has not changed. I have noticed that a number of these systems require that you trick your computer into leaning your mixture even further than the computer will when running HHO. Running leaner than the optimum A/F ratio will certainly affect MPGs, but is hard on engine's top end.

I never claimed any miracle science, or violation of the thermo laws which I understand all to well. Just wondering if/how the efficiency of the engine may be getting changed. Efficiency in this case meaning the ratio of energy-in/mechanical-energy-out and less wasted as heat. Given the mpg claims (which I'm skeptical of), I'm thinking this is simply causing the engine to run leaner, or maybe the placebo effect is causing the drivers to drive with a lighter foot. Still make s a good engineering debate and fun to watch some folks doing little science experiments. Personally, I'd love to see a blind test done with some real distances and the drive not knowing if it was turned on or not.

 

[lawsoncl]

Just a bit curious where you found that equation? Looks to me like it is missing the accumulation terms and work terms and even then its not really right.

Energy into a system actually = energy into the system (less any losses along the way)

Like if I charge a battery the energy I stored in the battery is in the battery, not outside of the system (battery) as your equation above implies.

Well technically.... if you charge a battery most of the energy gets stored as potential (chemical) energy and some of it is lost as heat from the battery's internal resistance and and then lost into the surroundings.

 

[Ecomike]

If your assumption is that HHO is just displacing gasoline as the burned fuel with no other effects happening, then you'd be correct. In that oversimplified assumption you would indeed be throwing away energy as heat at the 85% efficient alternator and the 60% efficient HHO generator. However something more seems to be happening. This thread is an attempt at a civil discussion of how and why people are seeing better mpg. If you don't have anything other than snide comments please shut up.

So lets throw some ballpark numbers out there. At a 60 mph crusing speed, an engine output of 25 Hp would be reasonable. Figuring 10-15% powertrain loss, that's maybe 22 hp to the ground). I used http://www.engr.colostate.edu/~allan/fluids/page8/power/power.html as a reference with the default values.

Lets also assume you're pumping 10 amps at 12 volts into the HHO generator. Figuring 85% efficiency at the alternator, that translates into an additional 0.2 HP demand on the engine output. That's an increase on the engine load of about 2% - about the same as turning on the headlights. So the actual cost of running the HHO generator isn't really that much. For this setup to produce an improvement, the added HHO gas needs to increase the engine efficiency by only 2% (which could be from an average 25% to 25.5% gas-> mechanical engine efficiency)

I can see where adding HHO might improve the combustion a little, maybe even enough to more than break even. I am still having difficulty with the notion that it's improving engine combustion efficiency by 10-15% as some are reporting. Those kinds of changes demand either compression ratio changes, valve timing changes, or running a lot leaner. Perhaps there is some other explanation such as influencing the O2 sensor to read differently.

Has anyone determined the actual gas output rates of their HHO generators? I'm curious how it compares, volume-wise, to the cfm of air and quantity of fuel used per minute as 60 mph?

Again ballparking 20 mpg and 60 mph thats 3 gallons of gasoline an hour or about 5750 BTU/minute. Guessing a VE of 0.8, 232 cubic inch displacement, and 2200 rpm means sucking 118 cfm of air. Uncompressed H2 has an energy content of 319 BTU/ft3. Taking the 120 watts above and ballparking an electrolysis efficiency of 60% thats 245 BTU/minute or around 0.78 cfm. That seems really small compared to the 118 cfm of air flowing through the engine.

Impressive post Mr. Lawsoncl! Most impressive! How is that Naquida generator coming? LOL.

I like your numbers and details above. If anything they indicate to me that we are on the right track here. The only way this thing can be really working, is if the 1/2% hydrogen feed (.78/118 cfm) is igniting before the gasoline, and then setting off a more reliable (meaning less missfires) more rapid, hotter initial combustion of the gasoline. In other words it is making the gasoline burner hotter and faster than it would normally and thus yielding a bit more torque at the crankshaft. Keep in mind that in the time domain, the hydrogen burns much faster than the gasoline, and has a far wide A/F ratio range, and a lower explosive limit than gasoline, meaning it it is easily ignited even at 100:1 or higher A/F ratios.

I also still suspect the small amount of added water vapor (traces of steam) is somehow involved. Those HHO generators must be adding water vapor too. Just look at the engine vacuum on the generator and the water temperature in the generator. That combo must be boiling some water too and introducing it into the engine with the HHO gas!

I found this part of your analysis particularly interesting as it shows how little a change in efficiency is needed to boost mileage in an ICE engine:

"the added HHO gas needs to increase the engine efficiency by only 2% (which could be from an average 25% to 25.5% gas-> mechanical engine efficiency)"

I read some posts in other forums where they were measuring the gas output rate of their generators, but they did know how to do it accurately. Also, with all that water vapor flowing with the HHO gas, the volumetric flow measurements would be meaningless with knowing how much of it was water vapor.

One thing I do know, a little bit of water feed to the intake, even as a gas, will (should) clean out the carbon crap out of the engine much better than Seafoam, and keep on cleaning it with one of these rigs on board. That should improve combustion too.