I don't believe you were called a liar. It was merely pointed out that you were incorrect.

To be truthful, however, if you are not willing to gather and collate data on the system, then in all honesty, you have no reason to become piqued if someone does say you are talking complete and utter tosh. Why should we believe hearsay when it goes against proven facts? Prove your opinion with hard fact, or take any and all responses as they come.

Plus no, I have no interest in the plans, thanks anyhow. I am quite familiar with the principles of electrolysis.

 

I wouldn't mind having one of those, actually.

I'm excitedly waiting all the changes in technology and availability of vehicles in the near future!!!

Hi guys, I recently visited your site.I'm doing a Chemistry project and was wondering if HHO is a viable source of energy? Does it waste more energy than it uses?
Thanks.

 

You're a chemistry student? Bollocks. I would also assume that yourself and sweethe are the same person, due to the fact that you both seem to be promoting that advertising blog via any means possible.

By god, I must be psychic:

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...1&postcount=15

 

Dude, the auto's have taller rear axle ratios. That's how they get by with only three speeds. 5 speeds need OD to compensate for the lower axle ratio required to get them rolling without excessive clutch slippage.

Anyway, your fuel economy is within acceptable limits of a properly tuned vehicle of that type (small 4 cylinder). Prove something.

Frank

 

No, a 4 speed auto would be comperable to a 5-speed manual. look at all the new autos, 4 speeds. the 3 speed will not have anywhere near the final ratio even with the higher gears.

I am not looking to prove anything to people, i was just stating my experience with the topic!!!

I could give a if you believe me, try it for your self if you are so hell bent on proving me wrong i dont care.

 

You need to look at each vehicles final drive gearing. There is no set rule here, even within one vehicle/engine/trans combo, gearing is changed at the factory to accommodate different tire sizes.

Anyway, relax already. We aren't so much hellbent on proving you wrong as I think we'd like to see you prove yourself right. Who wouldn't want to save gas?

Frank

 

I'm glad to see your are experimenting with this technology. This technology DOES work. I don't have a lot of time to waste with the naysayers, but after over a year of research I can give you a little bit of insight as to how and why this technology works.

First of all, we all know (or should know) the 2nd law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created or destroyed). This technology DOES NOT violate this law. The hydroxy (aka Brown's gas, HHO) gas DOES assist the engine in MORE COMPLETE combustion. It DOES ignite faster and cause the temperature in the cylinder to skyrocket with a much faster flame-spread. This causes the largest molecules in the gasoline/diesel to ignite sooner, rather than being dumped into the exhaust and a large portion of that gets burned in the exhaust (I am aware that EGR returns SOME of this unburned fuel, but the cat burns the rest). As another user said earlier in the thread this early ignition is not desirable because of the lack of mechanical advantage on the crank. That is true. The ignition timing MUST be retarded to cause detonation at the correct angle (ie like original timing). You can choose not to, but WILL NOT see optimum MPG and HP gains. This covers the ignition.

Another important fact is that breaking water bonds COSTS ENERGY that is supplied by YOUR ENGINE! It is impossible to get more energy back (with a simple, brute force electrolyzer, like what everyone is selling) by burning it than what we spent in breaking the bonds. Therefore, we ONLY WANT TO MAKE JUST ENOUGH TO BURN THE GAS COMPLETELY!!! Don't listen to the fools that say MORE HYDROXY (HHO) IS BETTER! That would break the second law of thermodynamics AND Faraday's Law. You get your increases in mileage and horsepower FROM THE GAS/DIESEL by burning it more completely, NOT THE HYDROGEN. Hydrogen in this system is NOT a real fuel source, it simply facilitates a more efficient burn.

Another obstacle to installing this unit is the emmission controls (aka ECU). The oxygen sensors WILL detect too much oxygen in the exhaust for stochiometric combustion (aka 14.7:1 air:fuel), BUT that is because it is expecting NORMAL INEFFICIENT gasoline combustion. This will cause the ECU to richen the fuel mixture, causing the fuel system to dump EXCESS fuel into the cylinders. To compensate for this it is ESSENTIAL that ALL O2 sensors and MAP/MAF sensors be modified. Most sites will tell you that all you need are small units called EFIE's (electronic fuel injection enhancers) for O2 sensor(s) and a MAP/MAF enhancer. These devices can only be tuned to ONE condition (ie cruising) and will not be optimized under ANY OTHER circumstance. At any rate, the only way to see truly optimized results is with an ECU piggyback to correctly establish the proper computer maps and optimize the system for ALL driving conditions.

Unfortunately the programming software is usually around $1000 and another $200-$400 for the actual piggyback computer. Not to mention you have to be properly trained/very quick, self taught learning ability to properly set this up. Preferably you want a dyno too, so that it can be optimized without relying on sensors and calculations within the same system you are trying to optimize.

I'm not trying to discourage ANYONE from experimenting, but don't expect 50% - 125% increase in mileage (which IS possible with some cars/trucks with large engines). However, you should be able to get 25% - maybe 50% increase with MAP/MAF enhancer and EFIE when driven mostly at the speed/conditions at which it was optimized.

As for independant test results, they HAVE been done (if you have enough time to spout your mouth off on this board, then you have enough time to find them on the net if you really want to see them... I'm NOT wasting my time to link to them here).

In closing, I am not affiliated in any way with any current/ past company selling these units. (Trust me, if/when I come to market with a product, you can be sure it's a lot better than anything you've seen yet!)

I hope this has dispelled a few of the myths.

Oh yeah, the Mythbusters episode was A JOKE! They tried to RUN A CAR from an eletrolyzer that, even if it was a good plan, was never intended to RUN a car, only to boost it (accelerate gas burn)! They didn't install ANY electronics! It was a RETARDED "test". Why didn't they bring in someone that's selling/installing the units?

 

I have 2004 runner V6. I got the hho setup and everything..... One problem the sensor that I have to install the ECU enhancer onto has 5 freaking wires coming out of it ..... which one is the "signal" and which is "signal return"????? Please help... Picture are even better!!!!


4RunnerH2O

 

@sargon

If you're modifying the O2 sensor feedback to the ECU, you've introduced a wildcard into your data since the O2 signal directly influences the mixture and mileage. You can't say with any certainty that the HHO input was solely responsible for the mileage change. The difference could just a easily be attributed to the O2 mod and changes in driving habits. Put this on a dyno with real instrumentation under controlled conditions.

Also, there shouldn't be excess oxygen. The added hydrogen needs additional oxygen to burn above that required by the fuel. The electrolysis by its nature provides the exact amount of additional O2 needed to satisfy the combustion demands of the hydrogen. If there's too much O2, there's probably a vacuum leak being introduced by the HHO unit.

BTW: The EGR valve is not there to burn unburned fuel. It's there to recirculate the CO2 from the combustion process back into the cylinders in an effort to raise the effective octane of the fuel.

 

Ok guys... here we go.

Process:
Gasoline -> Alternator -> Electrolysis -> Hydrogen combustion.

2H2 + O2 requires 237.1kJ/mol energy to produce from electrolysis. It releases 286kJ/mol energy through combustion. That's a 20% gain in energy. [1][2]
Ignore that stuff above, wrote that about 20 min after I woke up and I did my research too quick. Electrolysis efficiency is between 50% and 70%. So if we plug that into the equation below... (scroll down)


So the HHO guys have a point? Wrong.


The problem comes with the efficiency of the entire process.
Gasoline -> Alternator -> Electrolysis -> Combustion.

Gasoline engines are 25-30% efficient. [3]
Alternators are between 55% and 70% efficient. [4]
And we know the Electrolysis -> 2H2 + O2 combustion process is 50% - 70% efficient.

Now let's do the math:

Starting at 100%, we incorporate the engine efficiency, then alternator efficiency, then electrolysis -> combustion efficiency.
1.00 * 0.30 * 0.70 * 0.70 = 0.15.

Let's compare that to straight Gasoline -> wheels.
1.00 * 0.30 = 0.30.

So we have double the efficiency WITHOUT using electrolysis. Of course, this only counts for the amount of energy that would be spent towards the Electrolysis production, so in practice the difference would not be as drastic but it would still be less efficient to use electrolysis.



So shut up about your stupid electrolysis crap and stick to your "gas-guzzling, non-eco-friendly, polluting monstrosities" which happen to produce LESS emissions.

(These guys make me angry, if you can't tell)

 

Ummm, you can't get over-unity energy efficiency from electrolysis. The idea that you get 20% more energy than you put in should be a clue that something's wrong. (Conservation of energy.)

In practice, a good electrolysis unit can operate at around 50% efficiency.

 

You know...now that I look at the equations you make a good point... I wrote that out pretty quick.

The only thing is, the data's off university websites so it probably ISN'T wrong. There's got to be something I'm missing.

EDIT: I'll figure it out later today, its bothering me but I gotta get some stuff done.

Fact is, even if electrolysis was magical and over-unity efficient, it would still be less efficient than straight gasoline engines haha.

 

Where is there an energy conversion system in the known universe that is 120% efficient? Is that not perpetual motion? Hydrogen is not an energy source. It is an energy storage device. It takes energy to make hydrogen (with losses). There is no free hydrogen floating around. The only time it is free energy is if you use free energy to make it (sun, wind......)

Also can someone explain the science behind how hydrogen makes a gasoline combustion process more efficient? Oh ya no data. Just saying it does not make it so.

 

I totally agree with you Flash. I wrote that about 20 min after I woke up. The math is right but the electrolysis efficiency isn't. It doesn't really make any sense.

The theory behind hydrogen making the combustion burn better is pretty simple.

Air is made up of mostly nitrogen (78%) and oxygen (21%). Hydrogen comprises only 0.000055% of the atmosphere.

Electrolysis produces pure hydrogen (66%) and oxygen (33%). By allowing the intake to sip on that along with normal air, it displaces some of the normal air (mostly nitrogen) and allows for a higher concentration of oxygen and hydrogen.

Hydrogen combustion produces 121 MJ/kg while 87 octane gasoline combustion produces 44 MJ/kg. By adding a higher concentration of oxygen and hydrogen to the fuel mixture, you're increasing the energy output of the engine.

The only problem with hydrogen is that it significantly increases cylinder temperatures because it doesn't cool the cylinders like gasoline does before combustion which is why people have to adjust the air/fuel ratio.

Of course, this is all theory. The fact still stands that if your car is producing the hydrogen you're getting a net loss in efficiency. If the hydrogen was produced outside the vehicle it would be a completely different story.

EDIT: I redid my math up above, fixed my mistakes from my lack of sleep.

 

Ooop missread

 

You're right about the ECU wanting to keep the mixture at 14.7:1, that's something you'd have to control with a standalone engine management for it to actually work properly with hydrogen. I've worked a lot with standalones on honda engines, never with hydrogen, but it is very easy to change fuel maps.

There are hack ways to adjust it though (piggybacks and signal modifiers), which is probably what some of these people are doing. The problem is that they are not accurate, consistent, or safe.

I'm not siding with onboard electrolysis, I'm merely stating their questionable theories for discussion and providing some real math to go along with it. I think the idea's completely stupid and a lot of people get angry with me for showing them why it is so.

 

Is the alternator not producing an excess of power anyways?.... and if Alternator isn't clutched then it should be placing a consistent drag on the engine???

 

The alternator is only making power when it is needed. When there is no load on it then it is not using engine power (except for losses in friction, bearings and field winding). Electricity only flows when it has something to flow through, ie a load. If you are placing a load on the alternator all the time, making hydrogen, then you are using energy to make it thus no net gain, only loss.

NicCant;
I understand where you are coming from. I see what these people are saying too but if you have any understanding of the physical world and modern physics (which everyone should have but most don't) then this kind of thing would get big laughs from everyone. You seem to get this.

No energy is free except for unknown forms like gravity, light and quantum type energy (nuclear). All energy we use comes from one of these 3 and thus every time you change its form you induce a loss because machines are never 100%, even chemical machines.
There is only so much energy is gasoline (comes from the sun, non renewable). Hydrogen comes from breaking the bond of hydrogen from some other substance, like water. To break the bond (quantum bond) requires energy thus you have induced a loss. Unless the hydrogen alone carries more energy then it took to break it (which it doesn't) then you will never get ahead.

 

It is scientifically provable that it takes more energy to produce the electrical current to split the water than you can get back by burning the Hydrogen.

This water-for-fuel scam is just a perpetual motion machine in disguise.

 

Well yeah, if you go back and read the posts you'll see that I scientifically proved that even though I goofed at first

Fact is, if you're converting energy on the vehicle itself, you're wasting energy. Period. That's it. Go home and cry. It's over.