HHO Gas Hybrid Accord

[2ndGenGuy]

I do think it is funny that a typical human reaction to something foreign or differant than what they have done or seen is to be negative and act negative to the idea or the person people responsible for that idea.

I always try to remember that there was a time we (people) thought the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe.

Editing some while I am on my soap box. It does show the state of the education system in this country. I mean I got a circled 50 in Chem in highschool so don't have much to go on but I can understand so Chemistry and I did fair in math. I did a little better in 2 courses in college but it was dumbed down because I was in a management course. I wish I could teach people better but I'm not quilified in anyway to cover Chem or Phisycs so I try and keep my mouth shut.

I was skeptic when I added Acetone to my gas and got better mileage and still getting good results with 20% etheanol as well but I couldnt explain how or why.


wp

I'm not sure what makes you think that we were just being blindly negative about it. There are about 10,000 things when you go online and look up "HHO" that throw up BS flags in my head. I think they've all been explained in this thread, so I'm not going to re-iterate and re-inflame this thread. Nobody who had anything negative to say about it was just saying "no it's not possible" and not backing up what they said with some sort of actual fact or logical reasoning.

Myla Madson's complete guide to building and installing a Hydrogen Generator.
a coworker bought and DL this, looks interesting. There is a guy at a local shop that did it to his civic, has got 70 mpg with it.
It looks dangerous as fuc though
http://reviews.ebay.com/Hydrogen-Gen...00000005261775

That guide you linked says that magnets increased diesel fuel economy by 5-20%. Makes it hard to take any of that other information seriously...

[2oodoor]

-o-gen-ized

[2ndGenGuy]

-o-gen-ized

Lol

[2oodoor]

That guide you linked says that magnets increased diesel fuel economy by 5-20%. Makes it hard to take any of that other information seriously

wow the link is not even the same thing I was looking at, it changed even though the addy is the same. It was a scam alert.

[2ndGenGuy]

wow the link is not even the same thing I was looking at, it changed even though the addy is the same. It was a scam alert.

I was wondering about that. It didn't seem like you posted quite what you were talking about...

[gp02a0083]

it's hydrogen not hho,thats whats burning,when you break down water it becomes hydrogen and oxygen, if it had two hydrogen atoms it actually would be radioactive. just be very careful a hydrogen leak can cause a huge explosion. enough to blind you or severely burn you. i'm waiting for someone on here to get hurt, not stuff you want to play with. i hope no one does,but i have the feeling it's going to happen. also when hydrogen is burning it's invisible, you can't see it,

it would not exactly be radioactive, yes hydrogen can be formed via electrolysis, however limiting stoicmetric amounts, for every molecule of H20 2h to 1 O. To make radioactive isotopes would be difficult and would require a significant amount of deuterium and tritium to be formed, heavy hydrogen/deuterium is roughly like 0.01% natural abundance. Deuterium isn't all that bad i use it consistently in NMR studies , tritium on the other hand is less stable and harder to manufacture.

Going back to the HHo, had scientific studies of it are lacking with only 30 publicized papers, 6 of them were retracted, they can be found through the ACS's (American chemical society) supposedly the theory behind it deals with the dissociation of a single hydrogen from a hydroxide. even still breaking the covalent "partial dipole" would be difficult, probally would require very strong RF frequencies similar to ICP-OES/MS. what has been shown is yes production of h2 in a sense to make combustible fuel, this process would probably be better suited for voltaic means.

[cygnus x-1]

Going back to the HHo, had scientific studies of it are lacking with only 30 publicized papers, 6 of them were retracted, they can be found through the ACS's (American chemical society) supposedly the theory behind it deals with the dissociation of a single hydrogen from a hydroxide. even still breaking the covalent "partial dipole" would be difficult, probally would require very strong RF frequencies similar to ICP-OES/MS. what has been shown is yes production of h2 in a sense to make combustible fuel, this process would probably be better suited for voltaic means.

I understand what you're talking about here but I'm not sure how this fits into the discussion. Is this an alternate hydrogen production method (alternate to standard electrolysis)?


C|

[gp02a0083]

kinda it could be another way to create hydrogen, but i think it could be used better for a voltaic cell (similar along the lines of a galvanic cell ). Point being this, i think would not be well suited for a combustible fuel

[Ichiban]

Is this still going on? I don't understand it, as using conventional electrolysis methods (not including inherent energy losses) you will always get out exactly as much energy from burning 2H+0 as you put in dissociating water into the 2H+O to begin with.

Since no machine is 100% efficient, you simply stand to loose energy, both in the manufacture of the gas, and in the combustion of it.

I say leave the water out of it and focus on traditional means, like reducing weight, pumping losses, rotating/unsprung mass etc.

Unless, there's some catalyst effect that improves the efficiency of the original fuel/air reaction that I'm not aware of, and the 2H and O gas is manufactured remotely.

[cygnus x-1]

Is this still going on? I don't understand it, as using conventional electrolysis methods (not including inherent energy losses) you will always get out exactly as much energy from burning 2H+0 as you put in dissociating water into the 2H+O to begin with.

Since no machine is 100% efficient, you simply stand to loose energy, both in the manufacture of the gas, and in the combustion of it.

That's correct. You get a little less out because you lose some energy to heat during the electrolysis process. The efficiency varies depending on the voltage used during the process (among other things).

I say leave the water out of it and focus on traditional means, like reducing weight, pumping losses, rotating/unsprung mass etc.

Unless, there's some catalyst effect that improves the efficiency of the original fuel/air reaction that I'm not aware of, and the 2H and O gas is manufactured remotely.

You just about hit it on the head. The improvement in efficiency actually comes from reduction of pumping loses. It works like this:

One reason diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines is because they have no throttle plates, and therefore don't have to work as hard pulling air into the cylinders (reduced pumping loses). They do this by being able to burn really lean fuel mixtures. Gasoline engines can get the same benefits by running very lean air/fuel mixtures, except for one problem. Beyond about 17:1 AFR (depending on the engine) the combustion process isn't very stable and the spark ignition can't reliably start the burn. Adding hydrogen to the mixture makes it easier to ignite and helps sustain the burn so that it can consume all the available fuel.

You could kind of think of it like trying to start a charcoal grill where the charcoal is not piled up, but is more spread out on the grate. You might be able to get one chunk lit but the flame won't easily spread to the next one. But if you add some lighter fluid to it, the flame is much easier to start and will spread quickly to the rest of the charcoal. In terms of actually using the energy in the charcoal (cooking the food), the lighter fluid itself adds nothing (it's already burned up), except to allow the whole process to get started enough to sustain itself.

That's a somewhat crude analogy but it does I think help to illustrate what is going on. So the real question becomes; can the efficiency gain from reduced pumping loses offset the energy lost trying to create the hydrogen in the first place? It has already been done with diesels and there is a company with a commercial application available. With gasoline engines I believe it's theoretically possible but I don't think it's been developed enough to know if it's really practical.

Incidentally, last fall I did build an electrolysis cell to mess with but I still haven't tried it out yet. Too many other projects keep getting in the way.

C|

[cygnus x-1]

kinda it could be another way to create hydrogen, but i think it could be used better for a voltaic cell (similar along the lines of a galvanic cell ). Point being this, i think would not be well suited for a combustible fuel

Just so I'm understanding right; by "it" you mean the process of electrolysis using some sort of acid or base solution?


C|

[gp02a0083]

yuypers can be used in an acidic or basic solution , typical ud want a basic solution so you can facilitate the transport of protons thus creating a "flow" of electrons

[Ichiban]

That's correct. You get a little less out because you lose some energy to heat during the electrolysis process. The efficiency varies depending on the voltage used during the process (among other things).

I'm also thinking that because gasoline engines are far from 100% efficient, you are going to have substantial energy losses on the recovery side, when you actually burn the fuel.

You just about hit it on the head. The improvement in efficiency actually comes from reduction of pumping loses. It works like this:

One reason diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines is because they have no throttle plates, and therefore don't have to work as hard pulling air into the cylinders (reduced pumping loses). They do this by being able to burn really lean fuel mixtures. Gasoline engines can get the same benefits by running very lean air/fuel mixtures, except for one problem. Beyond about 17:1 AFR (depending on the engine) the combustion process isn't very stable and the spark ignition can't reliably start the burn. Adding hydrogen to the mixture makes it easier to ignite and helps sustain the burn so that it can consume all the available fuel.

I have a decent understanding of how diesels run. Timed direct injection forces a metered amount of fuel into hot compressed air just before TDC, where the fuel "cloud" autoignites along the fringes where the fuel/air interface exists. Cylinder turbulence mixes the air and fuel, until the fuel is completely consumed in a surplus of superheated air. Of course, it's not a perfect system, and some of the fuel mixes with the air before the moment of "flash" and this mixture detonates at the beginning of combustion to give the traditional diesel clattering noise.

Also, diesel fuel contains far more energy/liter than gasoline does, and combusts its fuel in a surplus of air (usually) These are some other reasons behind the efficiency of the diesel.

Anyways, is the purpose of the HHO debate to allow elimination of the throttle, and to basically use a Homogenous Charge Compression Ignition Gasoline (HCCI, or so I've read), or a traditional gasoline throttle/injector setup, which doesn't create any improvement in VE?

Just curious here.

You could kind of think of it like trying to start a charcoal grill where the charcoal is not piled up, but is more spread out on the grate. You might be able to get one chunk lit but the flame won't easily spread to the next one. But if you add some lighter fluid to it, the flame is much easier to start and will spread quickly to the rest of the charcoal. In terms of actually using the energy in the charcoal (cooking the food), the lighter fluid itself adds nothing (it's already burned up), except to allow the whole process to get started enough to sustain itself.

I understand that it is difficult to ignite extremely lean mixtures, and that they are prone to detonation. However, isn't the HHO solution simply adding more fuel, enriching the mixture?

That's a somewhat crude analogy but it does I think help to illustrate what is going on. So the real question becomes; can the efficiency gain from reduced pumping loses offset the energy lost trying to create the hydrogen in the first place? It has already been done with diesels and there is a company with a commercial application available. With gasoline engines I believe it's theoretically possible but I don't think it's been developed enough to know if it's really practical.

I believe the most commercially popular solution to get more air into a diesel is the turbocharger. I've also heard of propane injection being used.

What other systems are out there to improve the efficiency/power output of the diesel?

Incidentally, last fall I did build an electrolysis cell to mess with but I still haven't tried it out yet. Too many other projects keep getting in the way.


C|

Only way I could see this being viable is if it's solar powered. Just my $.02

[Gemini2003]

So Anyone Tried the HHO conversion yet? LOL Man I started this thread forever ago :-) Bump because I still like the Idea :-)

[lostforawhile]

yes the book is huge, I wanted to make sure you didn't miss it.

[lostforawhile]

just for a refresher, you can cannot create or destroy energy, you can only change it from one form to another, it takes energy to turn the alternator in the car, the more electrical energy it's asked to put out the more energy it takes to turn it. You are turning gasoline energy into electrical energy. if you are trying to make hydrogen, you are using the electrical energy,which is made from the energy of the gasoline,to turn hydrogen into fuel which is changed into heat energy. in all these conversions you have loss in the way of heat energy, heat energy lost turning the gasoline into energy, heat lost producing the electricity, and loss in the wiring as heat, and frictional losses as heat in the alternator. you are converting the same energy three times, this means you have loss three times, you are at a net loss, you can never get more then what you put in. HHO is a physics fairy tail

[cygnus x-1]

just for a refresher, you can cannot create or destroy energy, you can only change it from one form to another, it takes energy to turn the alternator in the car, the more electrical energy it's asked to put out the more energy it takes to turn it. You are turning gasoline energy into electrical energy. if you are trying to make hydrogen, you are using the electrical energy,which is made from the energy of the gasoline,to turn hydrogen into fuel which is changed into heat energy. in all these conversions you have loss in the way of heat energy, heat energy lost turning the gasoline into energy, heat lost producing the electricity, and loss in the wiring as heat, and frictional losses as heat in the alternator. you are converting the same energy three times, this means you have loss three times, you are at a net loss, you can never get more then what you put in. HHO is a physics fairy tail

You are 100% correct about the physics. However you're misunderstanding the mechanism for how hydrogen injection (supposedly) works. (I say "hydrogen injection" because the oxygen component of "HHO" is actually irrelevant) The hydrogen adds no significant extra energy to the combustion process. IT IS NOT ACTING AS A FUEL. If that were the idea then it absolutely would be a net loss. The (theoretical) efficiency gain comes from a reduction of pumping losses, made possible by allowing the fuel (gasoline) to burn at leaner mixtures than would otherwise be possible without the additional hydrogen. No energy is being created or destroyed. It's an improvement in how the fuel's thermal energy can be used by the engine.


Here's an interesting question. How is it that (all else being the same) increasing the compression ratio of an engine can increase power output? It takes more force (and therefore work) to compress the mixture in the cylinders right? The fuel doesn't have any more energy than it did before. So where is the extra power coming from?


C|

[lostforawhile]

You are 100% correct about the physics. However you're misunderstanding the mechanism for how hydrogen injection (supposedly) works. (I say "hydrogen injection" because the oxygen component of "HHO" is actually irrelevant) The hydrogen adds no significant extra energy to the combustion process. IT IS NOT ACTING AS A FUEL. If that were the idea then it absolutely would be a net loss. The (theoretical) efficiency gain comes from a reduction of pumping losses, made possible by allowing the fuel (gasoline) to burn at leaner mixtures than would otherwise be possible without the additional hydrogen. No energy is being created or destroyed. It's an improvement in how the fuel's thermal energy can be used by the engine.


Here's an interesting question. How is it that (all else being the same) increasing the compression ratio of an engine can increase power output? It takes more force (and therefore work) to compress the mixture in the cylinders right? The fuel doesn't have any more energy than it did before. So where is the extra power coming from?


C|

increasing the compression is more a matter of efficiency, the higher the compression the less energy energy is wasted on the fuel air charge expanding after it lights, it acts more efficiently on the piston, the downside of course is heat and the need mainly for fuel with a higher octane rating to avoid detonation. I don't understand the theory of using hydrogen except for octane possibly, but it has a poor octane rating. It's better to use something like propane to allow it to run on a leaner mixture, remember that propane used energy somewhere in the process, so you really aren't gaining anything. somewhere along the line with any of these octane boosting fuels,energy was used, nothing is free. It's like the electric car concept, zero emissions bla bla bla, where do they think the electricity is going to come from? if you look at the entire chain of that electricity from creation, to making it to your car, it's actually less efficient. Shhhh the government doesn't want you to know that, electricity is a clean fuel? funny whats that stuff coming out of the coal fired power plant, or the radioactive fuel that will be decayed in 10000 years

[Dr_Snooz]

Why did you bring this thread back? If we spend another 6 months squabbling about theory, I swear I'm going to freak out. How about we try this: only people who have actually BUILT an HHO unit that actually WORKS are allowed to post about it from here on out.

Better yet, just lock this thread.

[lostforawhile]

Why did you bring this thread back? If we spend another 6 months squabbling about theory, I swear I'm going to freak out. How about we try this: only people who have actually BUILT an HHO unit that actually WORKS are allowed to post about it from here on out.

Better yet, just lock this thread.

which is the reason I posted the

[2oodoor]

sweeet!!
popcorn, fried bolonga sandwich, junior mints... big gulp pibb.. this is quality entertainment..
bug zapper plugged in, whada hell its saturday nite

[lsemple]

I installed HHO on my Accord (1987) w/ carb, and have tested it by driving with it on and with it off.

The results I am having are great, and now my car has more power, runs smoother, shifts at lower rpm, and the engine is more quiet.


I tested it by removing the vacuum line to the hydro generators (T'd into the Charcoal canister vacuum line), and put the orig. vac hose on, the Engine's rpm dropped by 1 or 2 hundred rpm. I drove around like this and the car was slower, lacked the power it had, and sounded rougher. So I put my T back on and am using the generators I made to make my car run better.

I am expecting better results on our 'air-care' program that is enforced by ICBC here in BC, even though my exhaust system is in not-so-good condition.

[cygnus x-1]

I installed HHO on my Accord (1987) w/ carb, and have tested it by driving with it on and with it off.

The results I am having are great, and now my car has more power, runs smoother, shifts at lower rpm, and the engine is more quiet.


I tested it by removing the vacuum line to the hydro generators (T'd into the Charcoal canister vacuum line), and put the orig. vac hose on, the Engine's rpm dropped by 1 or 2 hundred rpm. I drove around like this and the car was slower, lacked the power it had, and sounded rougher. So I put my T back on and am using the generators I made to make my car run better.

I am expecting better results on our 'air-care' program that is enforced by ICBC here in BC, even though my exhaust system is in not-so-good condition.

Very interesting! And now for the barrage of questions. Which charcoal line did you tee into? Which generator design are you using? Have you taken any measurements on how much current it draws? Have you tried any fuel mileage tests? When you tried running without the generators, did you still have the generators running and just venting to the air or were they not running at all?


Get your snacks ready Roo', it's starting up again!



C|

[Dr_Snooz]

I installed HHO on my Accord (1987) w/ carb, and have tested it by driving with it on and with it off.

The results I am having are great, and now my car has more power, runs smoother, shifts at lower rpm, and the engine is more quiet.


I tested it by removing the vacuum line to the hydro generators (T'd into the Charcoal canister vacuum line), and put the orig. vac hose on, the Engine's rpm dropped by 1 or 2 hundred rpm. I drove around like this and the car was slower, lacked the power it had, and sounded rougher. So I put my T back on and am using the generators I made to make my car run better.

I am expecting better results on our 'air-care' program that is enforced by ICBC here in BC, even though my exhaust system is in not-so-good condition.

Sorry, I'm calling BS. You have one post, no pics, no build thread, no nothing, but you have HHO. Well, I make my toast with a cold fusion reactor. You're going to have to do a lot better than this.

Just to be fair, I think the theory is great. It's the reality that seems to be the problem. If this was such great technology, everybody would have it and you could buy a conversion kit at Kragen.

[lostforawhile]

Sorry, I'm calling BS. You have one post, no pics, no build thread, no nothing, but you have HHO. Well, I make my toast with a cold fusion reactor. You're going to have to do a lot better than this.

Just to be fair, I think the theory is great. It's the reality that seems to be the problem. If this was such great technology, everybody would have it and you could buy a conversion kit at Kragen.

my garbage powered cold fusion reactor is a lot better then this HHO stuff, and it's almost done, give me another six months