Rower4VT

Grumpy, There have been numerous post on other "gassaver"-type forums where people have installed it an called it a scam.

HHO proponents testify that you'll increase gas mileage 10-45%. If this were true then you'd be use A LOT of hydrogen, a lot more than you could produce from an HHO generator. Even if you optimistically estimate that you can get 2 times the miles out of a kilo of hydrogen than you could out of gas, and then assume that the hydrogen is only accounting for 20% increase in your fuel mileage, so we'll say conservatively that you're getting an additional 5 miles from the hydrogen per gallon of gas consumed...Let's assume a vehicle that gets 25mpg. That 5 miles, once again "conservatively" would use 1/13th of a kilo of hydrogen. If you were to drive 25 miles round trip in a commute then you would need 1/13th a kilo of hydrogen to increase mileage 20%. A 1/13 kilo = 0.08 kilos. There is about 0.42 kilos in a gallon of water. So a quart would offer you about one-and-a-quarter "commutes" and that is if you could use every drop of water in the HHO generator (given a 1 qt. capacity generator)...which you can't. I don't have an HHO but I'm assuming that the electrodes need to stay covered with water to work, so if you have a 1 qt. HHO then the usable amount of water is well less than a pint, which would only allow you that 20% increase in mileage for about 10-15 miles before you have to fill up the water tank again. If you question my numbers and findings, then pick up a chemistry book, do some research, and find out for yourself. How often do you have to refill a HHO? If you have to fill it everyday, how much water do you add? Using my "optimistic" numbers, see how much mileage you could theoretically get from the hydrogen you produced. Once again you can only get .42 kilos or .92 pounds of hydrogen from a whole gallon of water.

Here is the kicker argument: The perpetual motion machine. If indeed you are getting more energy from the hydrogen you produced from the HHO generator than you put into it, you have to assume that most engineers/physicist/chemist are wrong when they say that it takes about as much energy to get the hydrogen as you get out of it when you use/burn it. Let's assume they are wrong and that these HHO proponents are right. SO then we are getting more energy out of the hydrogen than it takes to get it. If this is true then why not put a bigger alternator on our engines, fill a tank in the trunk with water, and increase our mileage by 80%!! HHO proponents say we get more energy out of the hydrogen than we're putting into it, so this must work!

If anyone has the science or absolute proof that this could work, then PLEASE tell me. I would love to win a nobel prize and put a 20 gallon HHO in the back of every American's car. Our dependence on foreign oil would all but go away. This is great!!

Disregard the sarcasm if you can. And please provide alternative "numbers" and "scientific proof" if you can. Ultimately, I'm just trying to save you money from a scam that simply is as impossible as a perpetual motion engine.

 

slopok7

Aight, i recieved my camera cord and i posted my pics to this forum topic

HHO Kit: Brown's Gas (from water) for fuel combustion efficiency. Any good?

imjust2fast

i have been watching this thread and i gotta admit i thought it was bs but the guy has pics with a sweet looking RL.... any thoughts on this now and im very interested in know if this will work for the legend and how.

__________________

slopok7

Thanks for the compliment

It works for every car, only thing i recommend is having the MAP sensor enhancer or EFIE installed at the same time.

I only saw GREAT results the first couple days, after the ECU recognized the lean mix the mpgs went down a little. I'm still awaiting the EFIE. Actually i might order myself a MAP sensor enhancer and install that instead. I was reading through the Water4gas E-books and it was talking about how MAP sensor enhancers were better for OBDII vehicles and the EFIE was more for an OBDI and older class vehicle.

What do y'all think? Grumpy, i know you've got some advice.

Infamous X

oh man i saw the other thread, this is looking so promising, keep at it guys!!

__________________

Mods
Stromung Catback - Telion Chip - Se7en Team CAI - Blackend Damper
05 TL rims - KSport Coilovers + Camber Kits - MLS Tower Bar - Addco front/rear sways - Fut's Ties
Tints - Leatherseats.com seats - KHrant Mats - Type A swap
JDM Navi Console - JDM Headlights & Micro DE's w/ HID retrofit - JDM Mesh Grille - JDM 3rd brakelight
JDM Window Visors

Soon
Paint Job - Pioneer Premier PRS setup - JDM Power Folding Mirrors

music2bmurderedby

newbs trying to clown on other newbs ... now that's funny shit!!! - then the newb all the other newbs are trying to clown straight comes through with a big ass can of SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!! much props slopok7. i just hope that you now can post favorable/worth wile results. seems you have an actual working system though bro - damn good shit. if your results are good this is fuckin' amazing!!!

__________________

COMPLETED mods...
*twin turbo kit on 35psi
*3.2 TYPE1 swap dieselized to run on cooking oil
*4 speed 86' civic tranny swap
*full quad exhaust system
*lambo doors all 4
*37,000 watt sound system
*hydraulics all the way around
*soft top convertible conversion
*auto roll down rear window & windshield
*white cloth interior
*blank cd-r hanging from rear view mirror

Rower4VT

I you do post results, you should post results driving the same conditions in the same manner (i.e., avoid placebo effect), with a solid baseline; before any mods. You should also post results with just using the EFIE and MAP sensor mod and NOT the HHO; this way you can see how much additional will come of the HHO itself. If you go over to gassavers.org and ecomodder.com you will find dozens of people who have tried the HHO thing, and no one who claims success AND post viable test results with it. At those sites you'll find people doing mods, and the type of testing used to prove whether a mod helped mileage or not. Simply posting "I went x-miles by the time the fuel gauge went down to the first tic mark" is incredibly un-scientific....of course this whole HHO thing is incredibly un-scientific. Good luck.

I did get 27.9 mpg on a 469 mile highway trip averaging 65 mph in my '96 RL, and 26.4 mpg on a 321 mile trip the day prior; both numbers from a ScanGaugeII. I'm curious if you beat that with your HHO.

Rower4VT

Could you explain the above comment a little more; "after the ECU recognized the lean mix"? It would not take a "couple of days" for the ECU to "recognize" the lean mix. The O2 sensor would pick up on that pretty quickly. If you blame the "mpg went down a little" on the "lean mix", then why get a EFIE?...EFIE's are meant to be used to lean out your mixture by tricking the ECU into thinking you're running rich. What are "great results"? Please post numbers; i.e., mpg averages over multiple tanks...along with tank averages prior to the HHO install. Also, you need to make sure you keep your driving style/habits the same or you'll be getting the "placebo effect".

Good luck.

GrumpySteelMan

Rower4VT,

You aren't 'making' hydrogen; you are freeing it from the oxygen bond in the water itself. This is nothing like the 'perpetual motion machine' as there is energy being added and water being consumed, no trap doors there. I know all about the second law of thermodynamics also, so don't get started with me. I know there is no such thing as a free lunch. I'm waiting for the first episode of Top Gear's 11th season to come out, so I've got nothing but time to write.

You make very valid points on the outside but you didn't actually put any facts into your post. All your 'optimistic' numbers are obviously produced by 'brotelligence.' Your attitude isn't helping you either, pick up your own chemistry book, and back up your own ideas. I haven't ever looked at a 'gassaver' website, nor have I done extensive research about HHO. I do like the idea, so here is my theory and I've secured some facts to support it.

Why would hydrogen gas only be twice as efficient as a complex hydrocarbon? Think McFly, Think. We know that every atom of hydrogen has combustion potential. How about gasoline?

1kg of Gaseous Hydrogen has an energy potential of 141 megajoules. Gasoline (without Ethanol or other additives that would lower this number) only has an energy potential of 34.8 megajoules per liter or about 46.2 megajoules per kg. HYDROGEN HAS THREE TIMES THE POTENTIAL PER KG. Notice I said 'potential.' So here is the absolute maximum enthalpy of the two. 141Mj - 46.2Mj (Hydrogen FTMFW).

Gasoline burns in a complex process. Optimally: Gasoline + 02 = C02 + H20 + PM (Particulate matter, soot). Gasoline is never completely burned in the engine and varying amounts of raw fuel enter the exhaust unchanged. The optimum efficiency for actual combustion is the stoichiometric ratio 14.7:1 Air/Fuel. The fuel would simply not burn in a large excess of air. If you increase the Air/Fuel ratio you begin to get NO(x) and CO. These higher A/F ratios, known as a 'lean burn' also create more heat than useful explosive/motivative power. This is why I suggested an EGT gauge to the OP. Lean burns make lots of heat and burn up inexpensive parts like exhaust valves. Gasoline burns optimally at a 6.8% fuel ratio by mass, with the aforementioned unburned fuel and byproducts.

So the hydrocarbon process itself is dirty. Granted most of my experience is in the performance venue and not mpg (more like gal/hp), but stick with me. We've always got an incomplete burn, and under lean conditions, the high temperatures we get cause greater reactions without benefit and more byproducts. All of these are things that can contaminate the next combustion event.

Hydrogen burns in a very simple process. 2-H2(gas) + 02 (gas) = 2-H20 (liq) + 572kJ So that's energy and water...that's absolutely it. Hydrogen is highly flammable and will ignite and burn completely in concentrations as small as 4% in atmosphere. Hydrogen burns completely at an Air/Fuel ratio of 34:1 by mass or 2.9%. So for a given mass, comparing these ratios, we see obviously a 2.3 times greater combustion efficiency with a given amount of oxygen.

So we could say that 3 times the energy potential and 2.3 times greater combustion efficiency mass/volume is significant. In a perfect world, for a given cylinder displacement, at complete burn, you would require 2.3 times more gasoline for complete combustion, and you'd make 1/3 the power. You're right, this hydrogen stuff is NONSENSE.

Now let's move back to the bigger picture, I'll pick a big one that the detractors hang on, according to you.

Here we are back at the second law of thermodynamics. HHO is made with electrolysis. The theoretical maximum for electrolysis efficiency to Hydrogen chemical energy is 80-94% with more reasonable claims in the 50-70% range. Sounds pretty bad right? For arguments sake we'll say we're only getting 60% of the energy out that we're putting in. Consider that this is a comparison of JOULE energy put in against absolute JOULE energy potential of the resulting hydrogen gas. So it takes about 225Mj to release 141Mj potential energy in the form of 1kg pure hydrogen.

So here is where it is weak, and I haven't done enough research...perhaps the research hasn't even been done yet. So here are my theories.

The Hydrogen alone, gained from the electrolysis process itself, is not enough to offset the energy needed to free it, in an internal combustion engine. This is undeniable fact. Another fact is that internal combustion with hydrocarbons yields only about 20% average efficiency from absolute energy potential (measured in Joules above). So there must be room to improve upon that, especially since we’re wasting 80% of the potential energy of every single ounce of fuel. Of course some of the losses are impossible to overcome in that 80%, but even a 2% improvement in total efficiency would yield 10% greater fuel economy.

When it comes to fuel economy, if you ask me, the royal pair is Volumetric Efficiency and Combustion Efficiency. HHO has some effect on VE, but I don’t think it is worth talking about. So we’ll talk about combustion efficiency. The HHO system adds Oxygen as well as Hydrogen to the intake system, increasing burn efficiency of the gasoline as well as the hydrogen fuel. Of course the HYDROGEN doesn't need any help. I'm surprised the shit won't burn in water. So we add oxygen to the intake, effectively displacing say, nitrogen, an inert component in the atmosphere...and improve the burn properties of the combustion of the gasoline. A double-edged benefit, the byproduct of electrolysis improves the use of the primary fuel in the engine. How would one measure this? I’m really not sure, but it makes sense on the surface. There is more pure O2 in the cylinder for combustion and less inert atmospheric gas. This boost in efficiency is not accounted for in any science I’ve seen, probably because this is not a mainstream idea. Regardless, an oxygen rich environment will improve combustion efficiency. This is why nitrous oxide works.

So the question is, does the additional energy required to split the Oxygen and Hydrogen from Water pay for itself by improving the combustion of the primary fuel, gasoline?

There really isn’t much solid research on using Hydrogen for Internal Combustion in the first place. I know the Mazda Wankel was originally designed to burn hydrogen…great. Most of the automotive manufacturers are looking into fuel cells, since they demonstrate around 50% efficiency from absolute energy potential. So I don’t have any hard numbers as to how much better hydrogen is than gasoline in actual use, but the science seems to point at it being much better. I feel like with enough research and proper implementation the HHO system could really work. Here are a few of my points:

1. More power without using additional fuel.

The byproduct of Hydrogen gas combustion is water. Where we are trying to evacuate every last possible breath of normal hydrocarbon combustion, the small amount of H20 left in the combustion chamber would be excellent at controlling combustion temperatures and burn characteristics, which in turn would allow for more power to be made by increasing ignition timing, with zero additional fuel being used. A smart engine computer would advance the ignition timing automatically, but we don't all have those, sadly.

2. Improving hydrocarbon burn characteristics

I’ve exhausted this argument above.

3. More usable top end power from a smaller engine.

Another side effect of the H20 byproduct is that a greater amount of overlap that could be run on the camshafts. A reasonable amount of overlap makes more power at high RPM, at the cost of combustion chamber contamination on the low end, which would be a lesser factor with a cleaner combustion process.

Honda uses VTEC to accomplish a similar goal, which I will use to explain overlap. Overlap is the time when both the intake and exhaust valves are open at the same time during the transition between exhaust and intake stroke.

VTEC Low-RPM operation has little overlap, is very efficient, and reduces combustion chamber contamination by greatly reducing reversion of exhaust gases being drawn back into the cylinders from the exhaust. If you had high overlap at low-RPM the exhaust would be drawn back in, with the intake charge, reducing effective displacement.

VTEC High-RPM operation has more overlap to promote cylinder filling and reduce combustion chamber contamination by using the greater airflow through the motor to help clear the spent charge in the cylinder. If you have narrow overlap at high-RPM the exhaust valve wouldn’t be open long enough to clear the cylinder.

I'm no scientist, and I am in a state of suspended disbelief at this time. You can get as excited as you want, and please bring the sarcasm, but leave your ignorance at the door.

__________________

slopok7

WOW!, that's a lot of knowledge

Welcome home man, i'd rather be in Thailand too.

Vic Cardenas

For having never done any research about this you sure do have alot of "General Knowledge" about this subject.

Holy shit, I think I just sat through Advanced Chemistry with Professor Grumps

__________________


Modifications:

Custom Cold Air Intake, Telion's Type I Stage 2 Chip, Blackend Engine Damper , TB Coolant Bypass, Custom made three point strut brace , EGR Block Plate,

Brembo Rotors, EBC Greenstuff pads, Goodridge SS brake lines. 215/45 Nexen n3000's on 17X7 Enkei Evo6's.

Auto Climate Control Swap (fully functional), McCulloch 5700k HID's, Alpine 8080 alarm, Moonroof Tilt, F1 Clear Corners, Clear Bumper Lights mod, 160mph cluster, Interior LED swap, Redout Taillights.

GrumpySteelMan

You're welcome to any help I have to offer. In Thailand the trannies like to get fully modified, but a 5'8" women in thailand is usually a good sign. I look at shoulders myself.

Answered you already.

I like to think I know a little about everything. A wise man always takes what he 'knows' and mixes that with a healthy dose of fact checking and some hard numbers. I'm glad the effort isn't wasted on this forum. (You bad motherfucker)

__________________

majik8801

i also have recently installed an HHO system and having trouble locating an easily accessable switched circuit. getting to the starter cilenoid is proving to be troublesome. any recommendations

slopok7

Do like i did and install a switch under the steering wheel (pg.5):
HHO Kit: Brown's Gas (from water) for fuel combustion efficiency. Any good?


I ran the HHO to the switch and then the switch to the battery.
How's it running for you?